Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Viscount Trenchard: , having received a Writ of Summons in accordance with Standing Order 10 (Hereditary Peers: by-elections) following the death of the Lord Vivian, took the Oath.

Iraq: Press Reports of Treatment of Prisoners

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the event that the photographs of alleged ill treatment by British troops of Iraqi prisoners, published by the Daily Mirror, were purchased by that newspaper, what action, including criminal charges, they anticipate will be taken against the former editor.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are unable to comment on specific cases. It would be inappropriate to speculate on action, if any, that could or might be taken against the former editor of the Daily Mirror, not least because of the effect that such speculation might have on any action that could or might be considered appropriate.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but it is surely a fact that a nation, irrespective of personal opinion or prejudice, does not caricature, exploit or seek to discredit our Armed Forces at a time of conflict. We recognise that those we call on in times of war do not have the opportunity of reply. Did the dishonest activity of Piers Morgan not compare with the treachery of William Joyce? Was it not high treason and should this latter-day Lord Haw-Haw not be made to face the full rigours of the law?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is less a question and more a statement of opinion. As I have indicated to the House, there are legal proceedings involved in respect of a case relating to soldiers in our Armed Forces. Therefore, we have to take the greatest care in making any comment that might affect any such proceedings.

Lord McNally: My Lords, regardless of the issue of the Armed Forces, to which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, rightly draws attention, would it not be a good rule of thumb that when the cheque book comes out, news values go out of the window, and that the Press Complaints Commission should continue to enforce the strictest of codes of conduct about the use of cheque-book journalism?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a broader question of press responsibility. I know that the noble Lord has been very active in the past on that matter. He is right that in the past there have been clear cases of abuse in the field of cheque-book journalism. Of course, the Press Complaints Commission recently strengthened its code with regard to journalism. It is primarily that body that must take responsibility for action in such areas where the code is broken.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister think that the newly published, amended code of practice for the Press Complaints Commission has made one iota of difference to the mindset of newspaper editors?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, judging the mindset of newspaper editors is a difficult task for all of us. We all recognise that there is a great variety in the British press, and that is one of its glories. The idea that each and every editor pays due regard to the Press Complaints Commission in equal measure is certainly fanciful. Some clearly have much less respect for its work than others. But the noble Baroness will know that representative editors serve on the Press Complaints Commission and play their part in its work.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, is that not just part of the problem—that the Press Complaints Commission has on it a number of people who are actually prime movers in some of the issues that come before it? Are the Government satisfied that the PCC does the job that we want it to do, or ought the Government to be moving to a different structure for dealing with the issue?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as my noble friend will recognise, the Government are extremely cautious about any additional or alternative move, not least because the issue of press freedom is one that we all recognise is of crucial value to our democracy. It is right that the Government should tread with great care in that area.
	As for the participation of editors, it might be recognised that it cuts both ways. As my noble friend suggested, it may give them a voice on the commission, which affects its judgments, but it is also the case that they are outnumbered by lay members—and those appointments are now advertised freely. Those lay members have the benefit of working beside working, practical journalists of the highest level, who make their contribution to the issues before them.

Lord Chan: My Lords, as the Minister approves of the change made by the Press Complaints Commission in getting more lay members, I declare that I am one of those lay members. Are there other actions that he thinks the Press Complaints Commission could take to strengthen self-regulation?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Lord and most Members of the House will recognise, the recent changes came into effect only two months ago. Consequently, it is a little premature to make a judgment on the increased effectiveness. Such changes to the code to improve the position have been made in response to previous complaints. I detect, certainly from the question that I have just answered, that there are a number of Members of this House, and, of course, of the other place, for whom the structure of the Press Complaints Commission is not a satisfactory answer to the overall position. But the Government will tread here with very great care indeed.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I declare a former interest, as I was the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, on the Press Complaints Commission. Is not the problem that we face that we either continue with self-regulation, and try to make it more effective, or we go in for a statutory body regulating the press? This is a difficult balance to achieve but there is no doubt that any pressure that can be put on the Press Complaints Commission to tighten up the code at any time and to make sure that the editors who stray from it are properly dealt with, not only by the Press Complaints Commission, but by their proprietors, would be desirable.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the only significant, dramatic action other than strengthening the role of the Press Complaints Commission and seeking to ensure that it does its job adequately would be statutory regulation. That would take us down a path that I think very few Members of this House would wish to follow.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the lifeblood of a newspaper is its circulation? If people stopped buying and reading a newspaper it would shrivel up and die.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. There was one very dramatic instance when offence was caused to people of one city in this country which had a very dramatic effect upon circulation, which dropped in that city. In that respect, there is a response from the public in the most extreme cases.

Neighbourhood Watch

Baroness Harris of Richmond: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How far they support the work of the National Neighbourhood Watch Association.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, neighbourhood watch is a local partnership between communities, the police and local authorities. Government support includes publications, training materials and funding for annual conferences in 2002 and 2003. The National Neighbourhood Watch Association is an independent organisation, funded by commercial sponsorship since its inception. Nevertheless, in 2002–03 the Government gave a total of £350,000 to support it through financial difficulties. Following a recent audit the Home Secretary declined to contribute further public funds.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he recognise that if the National Neighbourhood Watch Association is forced through lack of funding to close down in a few weeks' time, as seems likely, new neighbourhood watch schemes throughout the country will also close down as they do not wish to be merged with crime and disorder partnerships, preferring to maintain their independence from government diktat and interference?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be very sad if the National Neighbourhood Watch Association were to suffer a demise. But it needs to be understood that the NNWA has been in existence only since 1995. Neighbourhood watch schemes have been with us since the early 1980s. Our concern is to ensure that there are local, effective neighbourhood watch schemes on the ground. There are some 155,000 of those. We want to ensure that neighbourhood watch flourishes in the communities where its strength lies. If the national association unfortunately has to fold, of course, we will put measures in place to ensure that there is a national support network.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, will the Government remove the current restriction that prevents a deal between the National Neighbourhood Watch Association and Lloyds TSB insurance?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that we had placed any restrictions in the way of such a deal being brokered and I wish the National Neighbourhood Watch Association every good fortune in securing an arrangement with Lloyds TSB.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, as one of the 155,000 co-ordinators for neighbourhood watch in a tiny part of Somerset—it is hard work being one of them—may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that, in addition to the role of the neighbourhood watch in detecting crime, it has two very important advantages? First, it gives householders much more confidence and secondly, it increases community spirit in the areas in which it prevails.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord on both counts. I think it is fantastically good at building up community capacity. It encourages people to participate and to get involved in taking action against anti-social crimes in particular, which I know the noble Lord is concerned about as, I am sure, are all Members of your Lordships' House.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, while I, of course, agree entirely with the Minister's emphasis on the importance of local accountability and local action for neighbourhood watch schemes, does he agree that it would cause great damage to the local schemes if the national organisation were to fold as it provides quality assistance and advice across the country to ensure that all neighbourhood watch schemes can strive to be the best?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be unfortunate in the extreme if there were not some national assistance towards local neighbourhood watch schemes. I believe I made the point at the outset that it is the focus on local that is most important. It is unfortunate that the organisation has fallen on poorer times and it is regrettable that its earlier arrangement with Norwich Union has fallen away. However, we have undertaken an audit that has cast doubt on the National Neighbourhood Watch Association's financial management and viability. I would probably face a rather different Question across the Dispatch Box if we were to set on one side the findings of that audit. We must be very careful in such matters.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, first, can the Minister tell us whether the National Neighbourhood Watch Association was involved in that audit—whether it was consulted and so on? Normally, audits are carried out with participation by both sides, the auditor and the audited organisation working together. Secondly, is the Minister aware that many people feel that the sort of people who run local neighbourhood watches are precisely the kind of people who do not want to be involved in local government and all the paraphernalia of officialdom? They run local neighbourhood watches because they want to do something that is local and independent.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, thinking back to my time as a local authority leader, I was very keen to see local neighbourhood watch schemes flourish. However, I learnt to adopt a hands-off approach and to give every encouragement to the local beat, community officers and local ward councillors to try to get those schemes going. Many such schemes flourished as a result. As regards the audit, I am not aware of its infinite detail, but given the information I have, the National Neighbourhood Watch Association must have been happy to have our involvement in that audit, not least since the Government provided it with tidying-over funding of some £350,000 in the previous financial year.

Earl Peel: My Lords, do local neighbourhood watch schemes have the complete support of local police authorities?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should hope that they have because local police authorities, the local police service and local community organisations make the neighbourhood watch schemes work as effectively as they do. That important partnership, particularly focusing on crime reduction, is the key to the success of neighbourhood watch.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, following on that question, has any calculation been done on whether local neighbourhood watch schemes are a cost saving or a cost expenditure to local police forces?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is hard to put precise figures on the local cost of neighbourhood watch schemes because, by their very voluntary nature, they are reliant on volunteer labour. Obviously, that means that local police officers, probably beat officers in the main, give up a part of their time to participate in the schemes. Some of that will be voluntary and some may be a routine part of their duties. Local police authorities obviously have to budget for the support that they give to the community.

Middle East: UK Assistance for Palestinians

Baroness Northover: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What aid the Department for International Development plans to give to the Palestinian people in the next year.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, planned development expenditure for Palestinians this financial year is £26.5 million. The purpose of our assistance is to work with partners to help end conflict and create a viable Palestinian state that will reduce poverty. DfID's strategy for the next two years has just been published in its Country Assistance Plan for Palestinians. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply but express concern. I was going to ask her to confirm that DfID did not plan to decrease its aid to the Palestinians from last year's figure of £40 million to £26 million. However, that may have been confirmed by what the noble Baroness said. Is the noble Baroness confident that aid will be most effectively delivered—and it is badly needed—if there is a redirection away from Palestinian civil society organisations, as appears to be the case? Surely, given the situation in the region, this is not the time for any reduction in the effectiveness of aid.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I note the noble Baroness's concern. I shall explain the position. Our original planning allocations have not been cut but during the past few years we were able to provide additional in-year funding to the Palestinians, which took our aid programme to about £40 million in 2003–04. In 2002–03, our original aid framework was some £25 million, and in 2003–04, we had an original aid framework of £24.5 million. So the £40 million figure was a result of additional money which we spent in year.
	With respect to the effectiveness of the money, the noble Baroness will know that the World Bank has recently set up the Public Financial Management Reform Trust Fund to support the Palestinian Authority. To enable it to do that, the World Bank carried out an assessment of the effectiveness of aid and came to the strong conclusion that the best and most effective way of giving aid to the Palestinian Authority was through direct budget support.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say how much of our aid, or European Union aid, is going towards restoring homes, buildings, institutions and orchards that have been destroyed in so-called Israeli "security operations"?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not have that figure available. The noble Lord will know that we have consistently expressed concern to the Government of Israel about the destruction of areas which have been funded by the European Union. I shall have to see what information is available on the detail of that. I shall happily write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, money is always welcome. Is DfID funding for the Palestinian Authority dependent on the Palestinian leadership combating terror?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the funding is dependent on a range of criteria. I shall happily write to the noble Baroness setting out the detail of the criteria.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that while, as I have myself seen in the Palestinian territories recently, this aid is badly needed, and it is right that it should be given, she is satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to ensure that the aid reaches the people for whom it is intended?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am confident about that. We acknowledge that there is a degree of fiduciary risk in putting our aid through direct budget support. We undertook an appraisal of our contribution to the World Bank reform trust fund in line with our published policy on the provision of direct budget support. We look at the following criteria when we make decisions on budget support. We do a thorough evaluation of public financial management and accountability systems and associated risks. The recipient government need to have a credible programme to improve the standards of those systems. The potential development benefits have to justify the risk and the assessments are explicitly recorded as part of the decision-making process to provide assistance. In the case of the Palestinian Authority, we share the World Bank's assessment that there is some risk but that the level of risk is not unusual in countries where we provide budget support.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in my capacity as president of the charity, Medical Aid for Palestinians, I receive monthly reports from our people on the ground whom I last visited in the autumn? The report for April tells me that during the month of April 59 Palestinians were killed and 345 injured by the occupying forces, and that house demolitions, land levelling and confiscation continued to take place, notably in the areas for expansion of settlements and for constructing the wall. Leaving aside the need for a more rigorous political policy, as called for regularly in this House, including in yesterday's debate, is there not the maximum need for humanitarian aid in these desperate circumstances for the Palestinian people?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree that there is need for humanitarian aid and that is precisely why the World Bank was asked to set up the trust fund, which is in addition to the money already going to the Palestinian Authority from a range of sources. The noble Lord will know that we are of the strong view that recent Israeli actions in Gaza have been disproportionate to the security threat. We have made that view well known. Home demolitions have been carried out as a form of collective punishment and therefore are in contravention of international law. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made that absolutely clear and we were very pleased to support the recent UN Security Council resolution which also condemned that action.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if a dependency syndrome is not to develop, the economic activity of the Palestinian people is tremendously important? Will she assure the House that everything possible is being done bilaterally and through the European Union to enhance the trading opportunities for the Palestinian people?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend that economic activity is important. We have seen a situation in the Palestinian Authority where 21 per cent of the population lived in poverty in 2000 to a situation now where some 60 per cent of the population are living in poverty. So, of course we need to increase economic activity but we also need to deal with the humanitarian crisis and to ensure that a political solution is found as soon as possible.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have a few minutes for the last question.

Red Squirrels

Earl Peel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to prevent the possible extinction of the red squirrel in the United Kingdom.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the red squirrel is protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which prohibits any unauthorised killing, injuring, taking, possession, sale or disturbance in a place of shelter or protection.
	Under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan an individual species action plan has been prepared for the red squirrel. The Red Squirrel Group, a partnership of public, private and voluntary organisations led by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, is responsible for delivery of the red squirrel action plan.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that unless urgent action is taken, there is a real possibility that the red squirrel will become extinct in the United Kingdom? With regard to that, will he make a government commitment on two fronts? First, will he make a commitment that there will be proper research to try to eliminate the parapox virus, which is affecting the red squirrel so badly; and secondly—and perhaps more importantly—that there will be properly funded, government-led, co-ordinated efforts between the private sector and the public sector drastically to reduce the number of grey squirrels—the alien species—which is the principal reason for the demise of the red population in the United Kingdom?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the House is well aware, the decline of the red squirrel population has been going on for decades and the areas in which they still exist are relatively few. Therefore, it is very important that we focus action to protect those areas, both to make sure that the habitat is appropriate for red squirrels and to minimise any danger of incursion by grey squirrels. The intention of the action plan is to focus exactly on those areas and there is positive action involving public authorities in partnership with private landowners, the Forestry Commission and others in those areas. Regarding the research into the disease, that is also continuing but we are not yet at a point where we can resolve all the questions in relation to that threat.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, am I right in thinking that it is important that people plant trees that are agreeable for red squirrels to use for food?

Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. In the areas where a red squirrel population still exists it is important that new tree plantations and the overall management of trees not only support a continuing population of red squirrels but, as far as is possible, that we use a mix of trees that is least amicable to the grey squirrel.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that grey squirrels are some of the most destructive pests in the country? Not only do they drive out red squirrels, but they destroy trees, rob birds' nests and there was, indeed, one case of rabies as a result of one biting a human. Will the Minister confirm that there will be areas designated where grey squirrels can be cleared out so that red squirrels can flourish? Will he consider setting up a fund to save red squirrels, based on the presentation of a "pound for pound" scheme—so to speak—for every grey squirrel tail presented?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, regarding the last point, we tried that in the 1950s and in fact the grey squirrel population went up quite dramatically, so it was not effective. Clearly, we need plans for those relatively few areas where red squirrels are present. That is the burden of the current activity. Grey squirrels are frequently a pest; they are not a protected species and people can destroy them, but the main focus must be protecting those few remaining areas where there are significant red squirrel populations.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. Perhaps I may say how enthusiastic we are as an organisation to be in the vanguard fighting for the preservation of red squirrels. Can the Minister confirm that 80 per cent of the red squirrels in England are in the Kielder Forest in Northumberland and that most of the rest are in Cumbria? Will he pay particular attention to the preservation of Cumbrian red squirrels, given that there are many scientists who believe that those squirrels are the only indigenous English red squirrels extant?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in applauding the activity of the Forestry Commission in this respect—in partnership with many others. He is right that the Kielder Forest and Cumbrian red squirrels are by far the largest populations and therefore those on which much of the activity has to concentrate.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Britain was a signatory in 1994 to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which commits signatories,
	"as far as is possible and as appropriate",
	to,
	"control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species"?
	Why have the Government not acted on that initiative?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are signatories to that convention and where there are problems of invasive species, whether plants or animals that destroy the habitat further and threaten to eliminate species, then we will take action. There is no such protection for the grey squirrel. We have a situation where grey squirrels have been here for over 100 years and dominate many areas of our landscape—so we are not exactly dealing with a new invasion. We are dealing with a situation where we have to protect the last redoubts of the red squirrel and that is where all our activities are focused.

Business

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 2.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Iraq and the adjustments to UK forces in Multinational Division (south-east). Following that, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Filkin will repeat a Statement on the European parliamentary and local elections.

Life Peerages (Residency for Taxation Purposes) Bill [HL]

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Life Peerages Act 1958 to provide a tax residency requirement for the conferral of Life Peerages under that Act. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill will now be read a first time.—(Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Children Bill [HL]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: moved Amendment No. 185:
	Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
	"CHILDREN'S SERVICES IN WALES: PRINCIPLES
	In the delivery of Children's Services in Wales, Children's Services' authorities shall have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: We have already debated the importance of the UN convention. This part of the Bill is concerned with children's services in Wales. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the internationally recognised charter against which countries can compare themselves. It is a minimum set of standards for countries to measure their treatment of children across the world. The UK Government ratified the UNCRC and reported on their progress to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on two occasions.
	The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child praised the use of the convention as a framework in the National Assembly for Wales strategy for children and young people. A report of October 2002 from the UN committee stated, under the heading "legislation", that:
	"the Committee encourages the state party to incorporate into domestic law, the rights, principles and provisions of the UNCRC to ensure compliance of all legislation with the Convention, a more widespread application of the provisions and principles of the Convention in legal and administrative proceedings and a better dissemination and training of the Convention".
	Even though the UNCRC was ratified by the UK Government on behalf of the UK as a whole, the National Assembly for Wales also formally debated and adopted the UNCRC on 14 January 2004, with an amendment to a Motion which stated that the National Assembly,
	"formally adopts the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as the basis of policy making in this area".
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights on 20 May this year, which was only last week, issued the Scrutiny of Bills: Fifth Progress Report which covered the Children Bill. It expressed concern that the CRC is fitted into the framework constituted by the five identified outcomes rather than the other way round. The Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Minister for Children on that point and drew the matter to the attention of each House.
	On the first day of the Bill's Committee stage, the Government agreed to amend the Bill so that the commissioner "must" rather than "may" have regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the Government have continued to resist including an express reference to "rights" on the face of the legislation. They also continue to insist that the CRC be fitted into the framework constituted by the five identified outcomes rather than the other way round. The Joint Committee has written to the Minister for Children on that point, and drawn the matter to the attention of each House.
	I would like to remind the Committee that this amendment concerns Wales and is therefore completely compatible with the request that came from the Assembly and with the Motion that has been passed in the Assembly.
	I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 191 has already been debated, but there is a need to highlight how essential it is for there to be co-operation between the different services. I recognise that it may not be appropriate to have Amendment No. 191 on the face of the Bill, but it should be in guidance.
	Following discussions on the Bill that have already occurred, there has been clarification of the issues behind Amendments Nos. 195 and 196. Therefore I will not be moving those amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I speak briefly to Amendment No. 185 in order simply to pose a question to the Minister. What would be the practical implications of accepting Amendment No. 185 which would include the convention in primary legislation as far as Wales is concerned? The noble Baroness will be aware that it is already incorporated in secondary legislation by the National Assembly. Therefore my question is precisely what the practical implications would be of the acceptance of this amendment.

Lord Prys-Davies: The Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill was brought forward at the request of the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly placed huge importance on the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and its implementation in Wales. When the children's commissioner Bill was before the House, in 2001, we spoke in favour of many amendments that would bring the UNCRC on to the face of the Bill, but consistently the Government opposed the amendments. However, it seems to me that the arguments then used by the Government have now been undermined by Clauses 2, 7 and 8 of the Bill. We can now bring the UNCRC on to the face of the Bill.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the National Assembly, to its great credit, ensured through secondary legislation, which was within the framework of primary legislation, that the UNCRC is at the core of the commissioner's work in Wales. But there is no statutory duty on the children's services authorities to work to UNCRC standards. To the best of my knowledge, such a duty cannot be placed on them by secondary legislation. I shall listen to what the Minister has to say about that. If that is the case, then I can foresee problems.
	On page 3 of the commissioner's report for 2002–03, it is said that one of his main tasks is to make sure that children know about their rights and the UNCRC. We all want children to know their rights under the UNCRC, but the question is whether those rights will be observed by the children's services in Wales. Well, on page 14 of the commissioner's report, it is announced that, next year, the commissioner will be,
	"increasing our work on monitoring the UNCRC".
	However, as I said, nothing in the Bill as it stands places a duty on the children's services authorities to have any regard to the laudable principles of the convention.
	The children's charities in Wales and, moreover, I believe the Assembly, believe that it is particularly important that the commission and the children's services authorities should be working to the same principle; otherwise there is the risk of fruitless confusion and some damage. If that is a fair judgment, that does not make for good government in Wales.

Earl Howe: Very briefly, Amendment No. 194 closely reflects the parallel amendment that we debated under Clause 6. I should just like to register again with the Minister the importance of youth offending teams in particular in the context of improving well-being.

Baroness Walmsley: I add the support of these Benches to Amendment No. 185. Both of our Welsh spokesmen unfortunately are unavoidably detained elsewhere, but they have particularly asked me to pass on my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Of course the Committee will have heard my comments about the importance of the UNCRC earlier in the Bill's passage. So I think that the Committee can be in no doubt about how I feel about it.

Baroness Andrews: The noble Baroness did great justice to her Welsh colleagues in that contribution. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 185 and take the other amendments briefly in turn. Noble Lords have spoken about how the Assembly in Wales has already recognised the importance of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It has formally adopted the convention as the basis for all its work with children and young people. Indeed, it has translated the convention rights into seven core aims, which will act as a basis for setting priorities and measuring the impact of service provision.
	The terms of reference of the Assembly's Cabinet Sub-Committee on Children and Young People set out its primary aim as,
	"to oversee the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Wales and the Assembly Government's Seven Core Aims for Children and Young People".
	That is followed in the partnerships.
	The Government are fully aware of the Assembly's enthusiasm to continue to reinforce its commitment to the UN convention, as expressed in the context of the amendment. We are discussing the implications with the Welsh Assembly, but, as noble Lords have already indicated, complex legal issues are involved. Those must be carefully worked through with the Welsh Assembly before we can commit to bring forward an amendment on its behalf on this issue.
	I assure noble Lords that the issues are being actively considered. Many of them—for example, the practical effect on those who deliver services, which will be complicated—will be discussed, as indeed will the issues that have been raised by my noble friend in terms of the powers of the Assembly. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
	I am also very grateful to her for short-circuiting the debate on her next amendment—Amendment No. 191. In order to reinforce the problems that we have with the amendment, I want to say only that prisons and secure training centres have been included in the Bill as partners under Clause 22. That is where they should be—as safeguarding partners. They do not really belong with the children's partnerships because they operate at different levels of functionality. I think that the noble Baroness will probably agree with me on that point.
	However, I should also remind the Committee that the Assembly and the Youth Justice Board will shortly bring forward a youth justice strategy. That will underpin a great deal of the progressive work which is being done in Wales.
	In relation to Amendment No. 194 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, again, I can assure him that youth offending teams will play an important role in promoting co-operation to improve children's well-being. They have links with the authority's relevant partners and it has always been the Assembly Government's intention that they should be involved in the arrangements for promoting co-operation. That is currently provided for in the guidance for young people's partnerships, which are part of the framework partnerships structure.
	However, we shall consider further whether the clause as currently drafted is clear enough. I propose to take away the matter and return to it on Report. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment. The noble Baroness will kindly not be pressing her further amendments in this group.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I listened very carefully to what she said about Amendment No. 185. Of course, one realises that the acceptance of this amendment would have extensive implications for a number of authorities. But when the noble Baroness said that the Government were considering this matter, did she mean that she hopes to come back at a later stage and give us some favourable news about accepting the amendment?

Baroness Andrews: I can go no further than what I said. Discussions will continue with the Welsh Assembly in order to explore these issues. We shall certainly keep the noble Lord updated as best we can on what we see as the way forward.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply. I find it very reassuring to know that active, open dialogue is taking place with the Welsh Assembly Government on the issues of the UNCRC. In the light of that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 20 [Co-operation to improve well-being: Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: moved Amendment No. 188:
	Page 13, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) play and recreation;"

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am well aware that the issue of play and recreation has already been debated at length. I simply want to emphasise to the Committee that there is a play policy in Wales and a play policy implementation group. In its report, that group's first recommendation is that the Welsh Assembly Government should place a statutory duty upon local authorities to provide for children's play needs to meet national minimum standards. A document, Play in Context—"Better Wales", outlines the importance of play and recreation.
	My other amendments in this group are probing amendments. I am well aware that, as they are currently drafted, they are not in an acceptable form to be placed on to the face of the Bill. However, through those amendments I was seeking to explore the issues of the provision of services, the duties and powers, and the consultation and co-ordination of services.
	I am aware that we cannot make lengthy amendments to the Bill. I have also borne in mind the Minister's very reassuring statement at an earlier stage in the debate that she was giving due consideration to putting play and recreation on to the face of the Bill, and therefore I shall not speak further to the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Gale: I support this group of amendments and, in particular, the emphasis that they place on children's play. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the Welsh Assembly is committed to encouraging all aspects of play and it has in place a play strategy. I believe that it could be a world leader in having such a strategy. The consideration of play and recreation in children's lives is given priority by the Assembly. I believe that there are many positive things in this group of amendments, and I hope that the Minister will say that she is at least prepared to consider the matter, as it is in line with the work being carried out in Wales.

Baroness Byford: Before the Minister responds, I was happy not to move Amendment No. 187. We have talked at great length in this Committee about the need for play and recreation to appear in the Bill. That was my only reason for not moving the amendment. However, from these Benches, I support Amendment No. 188, which concerns an issue that we have argued for throughout the passage of the Bill. I shall not comment on the other amendments because the noble Baroness indicated that she realises that they are too lengthy. But, at this stage, we wish to support Amendment No. 188.

Baroness Andrews: I shall go straight to the heart of the matter. Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 would add the words "play and recreation" to the definition of "well-being" in Clause 20. We had a long debate on Clause 6. My noble friend said that we recognised that an issue might arise in this respect, but it is difficult to encompass every aspect of children's lives in detail on the face of the Bill. We are content that there may be a question of how we encompass play and recreation with the notion of economic and social well-being. We shall consider that matter before Report, and it will apply to the Welsh provisions as well.
	In relation to Amendments Nos. 197, 209 and 228, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Gale paid tribute to the priority that Wales has given to play in terms of children and young people in its emerging strategies. It is to be congratulated on both those matters.
	Admirable though the intention of the amendment is, I do not think that the noble Baroness will be surprised to hear me say that both the local authorities and the Assembly are fully committed and fully competent. The issue of competence is contained, for example, in Section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which encompasses play needs within children's provision. That power is supplemented by the Local Government Act 2000, which, under Section 2, gives power to local authorities to do anything that is likely to achieve the promotion of economic, social or environmental well-being and provides the financial capacity to do that.
	That Act creates that very wide discretion based on the assumption that a local authority will know the needs of its inhabitants and how they can best be met. From my own experience in Wales, I do not think that the idea that the Assembly should be able to direct those authorities would sit very happily with local authorities. It would also imply that the Assembly knows children's needs better than local authorities. Given what the Assembly is doing, the existing powers and the fact that the Assembly can specify authority in statutory guidance that will be issued, I would suggest that the play situation in Wales is extremely healthy and likely to get better. I am grateful to those who have spoken and I hope I have reassured them.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: In view of the latest Select Committee report on obesity among children, does the Minister not agree that the importance of play and recreation is likely to be heavily emphasised and to affect government policy?

Baroness Andrews: I could not agree more with the noble Lord. It is interesting that in the Welsh play policy, play, leisure and enrichment make up one of the six themes of the Cymorth grant scheme, which has made available over £42 million in the current year. The Assembly has made open access to play a requirement for all the integrated centres for children supported by lottery funding in Wales. We have a very fine tradition of sport in Wales. The more we can put into investment in these areas, the more we will save in the long term in the health costs of heart disease, cancer and early mortality, and we would all want to see that.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. It is evident from the replies we have had that the Front Bench are well aware of the importance of play and recreation. I hope that those outside this House are as aware as the Minister demonstrated herself to be. It is important to flag that up at this stage. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I am sure that we need to pursue this issue.
	To emphasise that primary legislation can have a huge impact, there is a parallel with youth work in Wales, the gradual erosion of which was reversed by making it mandatory in the Learning and Skills Act. The benefits have been huge. We really do have the opportunity to make an enormous difference and to turn around thinking towards this important developmental aspect of children's lives.

Baroness Andrews: I think that much of that will be achieved by putting the children's partnerships on a statutory basis.

Lord Prys-Davies: I am sure that the Minister will be mindful of the significance of sport and recreation in the history of the mining valleys of south Wales. There is hardly a mining village in south Wales without a recreation ground. So we would be building on a very fine tradition established by the mining community.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: This has been an important and interesting debate. In the light of that, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment Nos. 189 to 196 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
	Clause 21 [Responsibility for functions under section 20]
	[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare: Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 199 to 208 not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
	Clause 23 [Information sharing: Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 210 to 221A not moved.]
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Establishment of LSCBs in Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 222 to 227 not moved.]
	Clause 24 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
	Clause 25 [Functions and procedure of LSCBs in Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 229 to 231 not moved.]
	Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 Funding of LSCBs in Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 not moved.]
	Clause 26 agreed to.
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Ancillary powers of the Assembly]:

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 236:
	Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) The Assembly shall make arrangements to ensure that, as far as is reasonably possible, there is consistency between the exercise of its functions under section 28 and the exercise of equivalent functions in England."

Earl Howe: The Bill confers on the Welsh Assembly the functions carried out by CAFCASS in relation to children who are ordinarily resident in Wales. I have no problem with that idea. Indeed, provided that the resources are there, I believe the change has the potential to benefit children and their families who need to access services. However, two things are clearly desirable.
	The first is that there should be a consistently high quality of representation for children across England and Wales. This should include the preservation of the tandem model of representation for the child in public law children cases, which has evolved to meet the very specific needs of child protection work.
	The second thing to be desired is that there should be a smooth transition from CAFCASS to the new service in Wales. The expectation is that there will be an agreed reallocation of existing cases between CAFCASS officers and Welsh family proceedings officers. What we surely cannot have, as the functions are transferred across, is any discontinuity of representation for children. That would lead to highly unwelcome delay. Continuity should be at the forefront of everyone's mind.
	I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on those cases with a cross-border element. For example, applications relating to a child living in Wales may be made in a court in England and dealt with by that court. Additionally, children of the same family, who are the subject of Children Act proceedings, may live on different sides of the border. How are those sorts of cases to be handled? I beg to move.

Baroness Pitkeathley: I rise to express the support of CAFCASS for the Government's proposals, and declare an interest as its chair. I am very pleased to say that CAFCASS is an organisation growing in competence and I hope in reputation. We now have a skilled and experienced board; a committed and dedicated workforce and are ready to play a significant part in the development of the wider children's agenda, which the Bill represents.
	As regards devolvement to the Assembly, we are entirely supportive and will work with Ministers and officials to ensure the smoothest possible transition and above all, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, reminded us, to ensure that comparable quality standards exist between Wales and England and that they continue to be assured.
	I support the amendment but put forward a couple of notes of caution. CAFCASS has bitter experience of being set up too quickly and with an inadequate budget. I urge Ministers here and in Wales to ensure that that does not happen again. With an issue as important as this, it is just as important to be right as it is to be swift.
	We should agree the timetable and the process as soon as practicable. We owe that to our dedicated CAFCASS staff in Wales, who have worked so hard and successfully to eliminate delays in the system. Above all, we owe it to the vulnerable children and their families.

Baroness Andrews: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving us an opportunity to talk briefly about CAFCASS in Wales and how it will operate. I take the opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley not only for her remarks and the reassurance that can come only from someone with her experience, but also for the enormous contribution she is making to CAFCASS and to this particular process. It could have no finer champion in improving and developing the service. We are all well aware of the effort she is making.
	Perhaps I may address the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The Assembly is extremely aware of the need for continuity. This is a probing amendment, but if it had not been so, we would not have accepted it as we believe that the procedures and processes in place are working very well. I say that not least because CAFCASS in Wales will operate under exactly the same framework of primary legislation and court rules. The responsibilities that the Assembly will take on for the functions in Wales are exactly the same as those of CAFCASS in England.
	On the very important cross-border issues raised by the noble Earl, the situation will be exactly the same. CAFCASS in Wales will work with the service in Wales and the service in England. For a child ordinarily resident in England and taken on by the Welsh service, it will ensure that arrangements for co-ordination and continuity are worked through with the professionals on the ground to ensure that in the court proceedings that child is not left in limbo with a family and somehow gets mislaid or that anything discontinuous happens. That will just continue as it is at the moment.
	The operational protocols to deal with this on a case-by-case basis are strong because they have been well worked out and because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, this transfer of responsibility to Wales has been enthusiastically welcomed by both sides on the basis of very good working practices in the past.
	Of course, a lot of detail is still to be worked out in terms of process before the transfer can be completed, and the timetable is not yet fixed. It is precisely those sorts of discussions that will feed into both the formal and the informal arrangements that will be made for future contact between the Welsh and the English parts of the service.
	On resources, once there is agreement on the principles of the transfer—and as soon as the moneys are transferred—funding CAFCASS in Wales will become a statutory responsibility on the Assembly. It will have to fund the service properly in the way that it funds all other services for which it has responsibility. We believe that the evidence suggests that the imposition of the duty in Amendment No. 236 will not therefore be necessary to achieve the outcome.
	Furthermore, the service will be underpinned not only by the framework but also by the same values, principles and professional ethics that have determined it so far. Its shared memory and history will be transferred and it will comprise the same staff. The existing workforce will transfer to the Assembly. They will continue to offer the same service. The importance of that smooth transition will be guaranteed in part by the application of TUPE principles. Of course it is up to those who will make those arrangements to decide whether it becomes an executive agency or a division of the Assembly. There is a model for that in the Care Standards Inspectorate, which has the same relationship with the Assembly that this new body will have.
	The body will be fully accountable. Indeed, there will be strenuous efforts to maintain and protect independence similar to those established by the Care Standards Inspectorate. CAFCASS in Wales will have its own identity and accommodation and will operate with freedom from ministerial intervention in its day-to-day functions.
	These discussions started many months ago. Given the way in which the decision was initiated, developed and embraced by all the parties involved, I believe that a very sensible approach has been taken, and with a consistency that we all want to see. We take the point in terms of CAFCASS's own history. We are sure that the consistency will be achieved. We would be reluctant to see the Assembly's new-found freedom to develop and adapt constrained by a requirement, no matter how qualified or how benign, to ensure consistency with England. I hope that with those assurances the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Howe: The amendment was intended as a probing amendment. I had not intended to press it in any way, shape or form, but it has been useful to have this short debate and in particular to have the Minister's comments and reassurances on how this important transfer will be managed.
	I mentioned the issue of resources somewhat in passing. That is an important point. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, referred to it. I very much welcomed her comments and, indeed, her words of warning that it is as important to be right on this as it is to be swift. I think that everyone has taken that point on board. I hope that the service has been fully budgeted for in Wales. That appears to be the case. If one can take that as read, I should like to reiterate my support for this change and I wish the new service in Wales every success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clauses 30 to 33 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Amendments to notification scheme]:

Baroness Barker: moved Amendment No. 236A:
	Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) After subsection (1) insert— "(1A) It shall be the duty of every local authority to keep a register of individuals in their area suitable to act as private foster parents for children under the age of eleven. (1B) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under subsection (1A) if it is satisfied that the applicant, or any person living in the applicant's household, is not fit to be in the proximity of children under the age of eleven."" The noble Baroness said: Yesterday a Member on the Government Front Bench reminded us that it is five years since those of us in what I suppose one would call "the class of '99" entered your Lordships' House. As we come to these amendments, I have to say that for the first time I have stopped feeling like a new girl and feel rather like a veteran. Those of us—for example, the noble Earl, Lord Howe—who spent many happy hours working on the Adoption and Children Act—a very fine piece of legislation I was proud to be part of—will be familiar with the arguments that I am about to put. One flaw with the Adoption and Children Act is that we did not resolve the long-standing problem of private fostering. There is no need to set out again in great detail all the background to the matter, but I would briefly say that currently there is no registration scheme for children who are privately fostered. There is a requirement that local authorities should be notified of a private fostering arrangement. It is a piece of legislation that is widely ignored and unenforced. Consequently, it is not possible to know how many children are in private fostering arrangements in this country. But work by people such as Sir William Utting in 1997 in his report People Like Us, and Terry Philpot in his work for BAAF, estimate that there are about 8,000 to 10,000 children in private fostering arrangements. We know that many of those arrangements work very well. Equally, we know tragically that some do not. Both Victoria Climbié and Toni-Ann Byfield were privately fostered children and in situations which were inadequate and ultimately dangerous. Consequently, they were not picked up by any authority. In 2001–02 the Department of Health issued a leaflet and guidance to professionals about private fostering. It was a limited campaign. But, so far, the department has resisted repeated calls for a system of registration and inspection. We have believed for a long time that a registration scheme would be beneficial and effective. Many of the arguments deployed dutifully by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, back in 2002 against such a proposal were based on the Government's belief that registration of childminding would not work. In fact, registration of childminding has turned out to be an enormous success. It is a success for childminders themselves, who have been able not only to raise their standards of care but to prove that they have done so. It has been of enormous benefit to parents, who know that childminders with whom they leave their children are safe. There is no reason to believe that the same would not be true for private fostering. Furthermore, were people to be registered under the scheme proposed in the amendment, they could be registered not simply to foster a particular child, but to foster a number of children. There could be lists of private fosterers. That would be of enormous benefit to parents who for good reason need to have their children looked after by other individuals. In the amendment, we have also dealt with one of the powerful arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whom I am glad to see in his place, made during discussion of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. There was concern that older children—for example, children at language schools and so on—would be caught within too wide a net. It also deals effectively with the other matter that has been raised against the proposal, which is that of teenagers—I understand that the current term is sofa kids—who for one reason or another are not getting on with their family and go to live with another relative for a while. Those Members of the Committee who have been out canvassing recently—with elections coming up, I am sure that many have—will be familiar with that situation. Often you go to a house and someone says, "He is not here. He is at his nan's. He is living with his nan at the moment". We do not want to intrude into such relationships and private arrangements, but it is essential that there is a system whereby the suitability and safety of such arrangements can be checked for the safety of those children. Amendment No. 236B deals with the fact that the Government's proposal in the Bill is somewhat limited and reactive. I will discuss some of its defects when we reach another group of amendments. From what little we know about private fostering, we know that many children who come to this country to be privately fostered come from particular communities abroad. They come principally from west Africa, the Caribbean and China. They come not because their parents are feckless or shirking their responsibility; they come because in those communities there is a good tradition that when a person for some reason or another has difficulty in dealing with that child, the child becomes the responsibility of the wider community. Problems have occurred when that system comes into contact with our system of child care, which is completely different. The cases of Victoria Climbié and Toni-Ann Byfield show exactly the sort of problems that can occur. The intent behind Amendment No. 236B is to be proactive in those communities abroad through the offices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to alert people in those countries to the system over here, so that they can make a more informed decision about the care of their children. That is a proactive measure to safeguard children. Finally, Amendment No. 237A is an attempt to remedy something that is clearly wrong with the current system: there are no teeth, there is no power behind the legislation, so it is largely ignored. The offence makes the proposal complete. I suspect that the Minister may well return to the famous word used by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—balance—and question whether the proposal sufficiently balances the requirement not to be intrusive into private family life while safeguarding children. We believe that it does and that it will protect children. I beg to move.

Earl Howe: I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 236A and 237A and endorse everything that the noble Baroness said in support of them. It is to the Government's credit that they have included in the Bill a more sweeping set of reforms by way of a long-stop for the measures set out in Clause 36. In doing so, they are being open about the possibility that the Clause 36 reforms may not work, but that admission is also rather revealing. Therefore, the first thing that we would like to hear from the Minister is why she thinks that the Clause 36 proposals are worth trying. In that connection, can the Minister tell us the result of the private fostering review announced in January 2002 by Jacqui Smith? I am not sure whether that has been published; if it has, I have not read it.
	A duty for each local authority to raise awareness, as proposed by the Bill, is unlikely to result in anything except respectable, middle-class people coming forward to notify themselves as private fosterers. Such private fostering arrangements do not usually give rise to concern. As the noble Baroness said, concerns relate mainly to children such as Victoria Climbié who have been brought into the UK covertly from west Africa and other parts of the world, children who are trafficked as domestic workers and, worryingly, language school students.
	That type of fostering takes place unseen and unnoticed. It can be extremely difficult to identify and access such people. It is not straightforward to raise awareness among them. They are unlikely to raise their heads above the parapet if they have entered this country illegally but, as Sir William Utting emphasised in 1997, it is exactly those groups of children who are most open to abuse. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to tackle the task of raising awareness in that context.
	I recognise the drawbacks of a registration system and why the Government may hesitate before introducing one. It would inevitably be bureaucratic. It could well be seen as intrusive on basic freedoms and the privacy of families, but there are a number of advantages in going for a registration system straightaway. The main advantage would be that both parents would have complete confidence that, by choosing registered private fosterers, they were entrusting their child to people who have gained an official seal of approval. That is terribly important.
	All things being equal, once such a private fostering arrangement is up and running, there should be little need for a local authority to intervene further as regards that family, other than by offering support where it is needed. Social services could then target their efforts where they are most required, rather than trying to track down illicit private fosterers.
	There is an argument that by creating a compulsory registration system we will simply drive unsuitable private fostering arrangements underground. I know that Ministers have had that concern in the past. But the unsuitable private fostering arrangements are already underground. Unless a person takes the initiative and notifies himself as a private fosterer, there is no possibility of checking to see whether he has committed an offence against a child or is otherwise unsuitable. It seems very difficult to justify the half-hearted approach taken in the Bill towards regulating private foster carers, when the legal requirements regulating childminding, a far less onerous responsibility, are so much tougher.
	The recent report by the Social Care Institute of Excellence (SCIE) found that childminding registration had succeeded in improving standards. The issue of standards is very important but it does not seem to feature in the enhanced notification system that the Government now propose, unless I have missed something—I probably have; the Minister is indicating to me.
	It was interesting to be reminded of the report published in 1997 by the African Family Advisory Service, which noted that most carers were of middle age, some in their 70s; many lived in poor and overcrowded conditions; others had had their own children taken into care; and, in many cases, the payments received for private fostering were essential components of the family income, which casts a question mark over their motivation in taking in privately fostered children. The report also commented that, in the opinion of professionals, many private foster carers offered an inadequate service. The SCIE noted that some private foster carers are either former local authority foster carers or people who have been turned down as local authority foster carers. Many of them have consciously chosen to opt for the autonomy and lack of state involvement in their arrangements. That tells a story in itself.
	The most vulnerable children are those under the age of 11. That is where a registration scheme is most needed. With older children, the arguments for compulsory registration with penalties for a breach of the law are perhaps less compelling, and the amendments recognise that.
	Amendment No. 236AA is included in this group. Clause 36(6) provides for an officer to be appointed to monitor the local authority's discharge of its private fostering duties. We need to go wider than that. The amendment would make the private fostering officer responsible for co-ordinating the supervision and support of children and their private foster carers; in other words, the delivery of the entire service. In that way private fostering would have a higher profile within local authorities than would appear to be allowed for, or encouraged, in the Bill.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the noble Baroness's amendment. Little more need be said, because the issue was so adequately covered by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Just raising awareness does not go far enough; there is a clear need to have a register for private fostering. It is interesting that the Fostering Network believes that all the responsible existing private foster carers would welcome such a move. The point about childminders has been made, so I shall leave it there.
	One does not want too much intrusion into foster families, but we want help to be available when it is required. That gives access both ways. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments.

Lord Hylton: I welcome this group of amendments, not so much because they may help to prevent a handful of extreme cases, leading to death, for example, as has been quoted, but rather because they should enable progress to be made on the murky area of smuggling or trafficking children into this country for undesirable purposes of exploitation. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to that.
	The resource implications may be quite high in the Government's mind. Will having a cut-off point at age 11, as suggested in Amendment No. 236, help to reduce the cost of introducing a registration system? Will it also eliminate the need to deal with language schools, which have also been mentioned?
	I welcome Amendment No. 237A, which gives teeth and enforcement to the process.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I support the amendments, but I question the cut-off at age 11. I am concerned that some very vulnerable children over the age of 11 may, for one reason or another, find themselves in fostering. We could risk creating a two-tier system. My inclination would be to be completely inclusive. If we are really looking at what would be right for children, we must ensure that none is potentially in a position of being exploited or abused in any way.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been an important debate, and I have agreed with much of what Members of the Committee have said. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I am not a veteran of these debates; nor have I had the privilege of hearing my noble friend Lord Hunt on the issues, so I come at them with a fresh eye. That may mean that I reiterate in part what has been said, but I assure the noble Baroness that I have not had the benefit of any briefing on what was said before; therefore my response should be fresh from that perspective. The noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee have laid out the issues and concerns very well, so I shall not repeat them.
	Victoria Climbié was privately fostered, but her great-aunt passed herself off as her mother. In that sense, the provision would not have concerned her, as there had been deception, which would have continued. I have asked about Toni-Ann Byfield. We are fairly certain that she was not privately fostered at the time of her death, but I am checking that. In no way is that intended to take away from the importance of the issue, but when referring to high-profile cases, in particular, it is important to check such matters.
	I am conscious that, in speaking to the amendments, I am also speaking to the Question on whether the clause shall stand part, because Members of the Committee have quite rightly raised the wider issues. I shall try to be brief and succinct in my remarks.
	I, too, am grateful for the Social Care Institute for Excellence report, which has been a critical document, not least in showing that we have developed minimum national standards, which are being consulted on. That is probably why the noble Earl will not be as familiar with them. They are currently being worked out. They are a critical part of ensuring that we see movement in this field. That relates directly to the work of childminders—an area for which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, knows, I have had responsibility for the past two years, although no longer—and in ensuring that the same quality issues that have applied for childminders apply through the national minimum standards.
	We are very mindful of what the report said about registration and the importance of recognising the impact that registration might have on different groups of children. I know that that is why the amendment focuses on younger children. In a nutshell, the Government's position is that, if we are to have a registration system, it should be for all privately fostered children up to age 16. That is specifically because, as well as younger children, a very vulnerable group, we are concerned about young people in language schools, a very large group, and about "sofa surfers", the term used to describe teenagers who move between different people. We are concerned to make sure that we have one system, whether that be stronger notification or a registration scheme. It should be consistent for all groups of children.
	Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I do not know whether there will be cost differentials. It may be that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has costings for the difference. That would not necessarily be something that the noble Baroness would have done, rightly. If we have a scheme, it should be a complete scheme. Frankly, I would not want to cost whether there would be a difference. I suspect that the difference would be slight, because the setting up of the scheme would be significant.
	The noble Baroness pointed me to the question of balance. This is much more about looking at what has happened and trying to see how best to take the issue forward. I will give one example that I have been looking at and I am interested in. Gloucestershire has done work on the notification scheme, and it has had a huge and dramatic impact on the number of people who have come forward to notify about private fostering arrangements. We have been keen to look at how best we can make sure that people tell us about arrangements, so that we can offer the right kind of support and ensure that children are safe. If people do not tell us, or do not register, it is incredibly difficult to ensure that children are well-supported.
	To begin with—which is why we have laid out the legislation in the way that we have—we should put the onus on local authorities to go and discover and ensure that people come forward to notify, based on the examples of good practice. As I said, Gloucestershire is a good case in point, where the number of notifications rose from six to 50 in two and a half years, because they had an officer who went out, who was responsible, who got to know the communities, talked to people, and made sure that they came forward.
	It is worth looking at and trying out the notification scheme to see if it does what we are all seeking to achieve, rather than putting the onus on the family—when many of these arrangements work well and are informally set up—that they must come forward to register. In the light of what is said in the report, and what noble Lords have said, there are issues and difficulties that might arise. As we recognise the importance of the issue, we have given ourselves a clear timetable in the legislation. If it is clear that that approach does not work, we will introduce a registration scheme.
	We are not shying away from a registration scheme; we are not saying that it should not happen. We are saying that when you look at the reports that we have seen—and the Department of Health, which was an internal report, fed into the report by the Social Care Institute for Excellence, and had similar conclusions—there are big advantages in looking to a registration scheme, but there are also disadvantages. It is important that we test out whether putting the responsibility firmly on local authorities to develop the notification system would enable us to do the job that noble Lords want us to do for all children, including the groups that would not be covered. That is the route that we have chosen, but with a clear indication that if it does not work—and we want that timetable to be firm—we would bring forward a registration scheme.
	We sympathise entirely with what the noble Earl is trying to do in Amendment No. 236AA. We have the power by regulations to require local authorities to monitor the way in which they discharge all their duties, including promoting the welfare of privately fostered children, and in particular, as the noble Earl said, to appoint an officer for that purpose. That is covered in regulations, but if the noble Earl has further concerns I am happy to write to him. We have covered that in the monitoring provisions for Clause 36 and the regulations that would follow.
	For privately fostered children under the age of 11, my concern is that if we were to go down the route of a private fostering scheme, we should have it for all children and young people that we are concerned about, and not simply for that age group, though I understand entirely the reasons why that has been put forward. We want to see how the notification scheme works out first, on the basis of a greatly enhanced scheme that will ensure that we develop those links appropriately. Ultimately, we do not think that people who are not notifying now would be more likely to comply with something that they saw as a more onerous and bureaucratic scheme, but we will move in that direction if we find that we are unable to achieve what we want to do for the children that I have described.
	I also need to speak to Amendment No. 237, which stands in my name. It is a minor and technical amendment. In order to ensure that the new functions are passed on to the Assembly, specific reference to the Transfer of Functions Order is made in Clause 36. Amendment No. 237 would make it clear that all those Secretary of State functions found in the amended Section 67 of the Children Act are Assembly functions in Wales. This is a small, but necessary technical amendment.
	In summary, it is important to have local authorities actively looking to get proper notification, dealing with minimum standards, which are out for consultation, to assess that scheme as quickly as we can to see if it does what we hope it will do. If we were to go for a registration scheme, it should be for all children who are vulnerable, because of the groups that we have indicated. We have concerns about a registration scheme as it would stand at the moment, in terms of whether it would do what we want it to do. If we were not to be successful in our notification scheme, we have taken the power to move as quickly as we can to a registration scheme. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Baroness Barker: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. If one goes way back in history—way back to the 1920s—to the history of legislation covering issues such as adoption, fostering and child migration, one finds that the record of Parliament is not good. In fact, in some cases it is pretty shameful. History is littered with promises of regulations and actions to cover and safeguard children in this country and abroad that were never kept. There is a fair amount of cynicism from people who have read that history about the extent to which the good intentions of people—which I am not calling into doubt—that children will ultimately be looked at, will come true. That is part of the motivation for this. I accept the technicalities about the cases of Victoria Climbié and Toni-Ann Byfield. They are evidence that the system is not working and is not right, and that makes the case for improving the system.
	I accept what the Minister said about what Gloucestershire has done, but one single approach in one local authority is not something on which you can base legislation. It would be preferable to look at other local authorities and see whether a registration scheme worked in them. I do not take what the noble Baroness said about the onus being on local authorities rather than on families. We are dealing with complex family situations, and until such time as there is widespread cultural understanding—I do not mean culture within countries, I mean across communities—and there is widespread public understanding of the need to do this, it will never work. It has worked with childminding. There has been a cultural change in relation to childminding. I do not see why these children should be left to be more vulnerable than others. On the whole, I am pretty disappointed with the Minister's response.
	I do not want to delay us much longer, but the Minister did not address my Amendment No. 236B about raising awareness in other countries. That is one proactive way in which we could begin to deal with many of these problems. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the need to deal as far as we can with the terrible problems of child trafficking. It was refreshing to hear what the Minister said about going up to the age of 16, because the last time I argued this case, the Minister said, "well, if we go to 16 we will have to include all these other children such as children at language schools, and we do not want to do that".
	I congratulate the Minister on taking a different stand during her stint at the crease, but she will understand why we decided to try a different tactic. We got the same result.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise for not answering the question. As I sat down, I realised that I had not dealt with the point. I was merging my notes.
	We will examine the matter carefully and consider further what we might do about awareness overseas of private fostering law in this country. It is a valid point, and we will be in discussion with the Immigration Service and others about how we might do that. I hope that that answers the question. I am delighted that, at least, I have approached it from a different viewpoint; therefore, it is my view.

Baroness Barker: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 236AA and 236B not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 237:
	Page 23, line 35, at end insert—
	"( ) The reference to that Act in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/672) is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this section.", amendment agreed to.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 237A not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 36, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Earl Howe: We have debated the content of Clause 36, but we need also to look at it in the context of what comes after. The Government have proposed that, if regulations under Clauses 37 and 38 have not been made within four years of the Bill passing into law, those clauses will cease to have legal effect.
	I like sunset clauses, but I am dismayed by this one. For a start, why is it four years? Do the Government really believe that they will be able to reach a rounded view within that period about the success or failure of the enhanced notification scheme? I seriously question that assumption. Even more do I question it when we bear it in mind that we have as yet no clue about when Clause 36 will be brought into force. It could be some long time after Royal Assent, which would mean that the enhanced notification scheme might be up and running for much less than four years. Why say that we are going to close off the alternative option after such a short time? There is nothing in Clause 37 or Clause 38 to indicate what event would trigger a decision by the Government to exercise the powers contained in them. It is entirely discretionary for Ministers. The only certainty in Clause 39 is that the two prior clauses will expire after four years from Royal Assent. That does not seem to make sense.
	We need to hear from the Minister why Clause 39 is framed as it is; why the Government think that four years from Royal Assent is enough time in which to test the success or otherwise of the enhanced notification scheme; and what actions they propose to take to ensure that they are in a position either to adopt or to jettison Clauses 37 and 38 with confidence that they are doing the right thing.

Baroness Barker: It may be out of order for me to speak to it now, but our amendment, Amendment No. 237C, contains another arbitrary figure—six years—simply to enable us to do what the noble Earl has done, which is to challenge the Government's reluctance. They seem rather half-hearted about the matter. As I said, that happens a lot with legislation on this subject, and those who see the consequences of it worry about it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I suggest to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl that we look at it as an entirely equal and opposite view. We put in a sunset clause to force us to make as quickly as possible the decision about whether the enhanced notification system is working.
	My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are keen that we should not hang about and let the scheme drift on and on. As I am trying to say, we were looking to see how best we could address the problem. We have some reservations about moving directly to a registration scheme, but we accept the need to do something in the area and do it properly.
	We have considered what some local authorities have achieved and thought, "That's very interesting. It might be the way to approach it". However, we do not want to hang around for years and years without doing something. The four-year period is specifically designed to make us examine the schemes, get them up and running, assess them and then determine, quite quickly, whether they are working. We think that we will know quickly whether they are working. That is the opposite of wanting a clause that we can ignore and do nothing about, so that it all fades away.
	With regard to Amendment No. 237C, we thought that the six-year period would give us too much time. We should want to get on with it, get the scheme in place, see whether it works and, if it does not, bring in a registration scheme. That is our commitment with regard to the concern felt by noble Lords and by organisations outside that we should move ahead on the issue.
	The noble Earl asked in particular about the criteria. Critically, they include an increase in the number of notifications. We shall look to see whether local authorities have managed to raise local awareness. We shall carry out an annual data collection exercise on notification rates, which we have introduced from April 2004. We will consider the new duties on local authorities to comply with the Children Act and the associated regulations, partly through inspection. We will decide whether we believe, having examined what has happened with notification and having got the evidence from organisations that are deeply involved in the field, that we are moving in the right direction.
	It is for those reasons that the clause is drafted as it is. It will keep us focused and require us to do something at speed. It is not, as the opposite view would have it, because it is something that we want to get out of. We think that we cannot wait any longer than specified. If the system works, that will be fantastic; if it does not, we will need a registration scheme.

Earl Howe: It is helpful to hear from the Minister that the four-year period is intended as a driver for ministerial action. That assurance is welcome. At the same time, nothing in the Bill obliges Ministers to take a conscious decision to introduce the provisions of Clauses 37 and 38. If one took the Bill at face value, Ministers could just wait for four years and the provisions would expire.
	Taking up the Minister's theme, I would like to see in the Bill some process that would oblige the Government to report to Parliament towards the expiry of the four-year period and tell us what conclusions they have reached. In that way, there would be a process that they would be obliged to follow. Otherwise, the whole thing is left open and could run into the sand. I am encouraged and discouraged at the same time by what we find here.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Does the noble Earl recognise that, for the Assembly, it works the other way round. It has a power, but, if it does not use it to do something, it will lose it. As the Minister said, it is a powerful driver for making sure that things happen.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall endeavour to address the point about a mechanism. I am never sure whether it is most appropriate to put such things into a Bill, but I shall write to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness about how we might address the point about keeping Parliament up to speed. I hope that the Committee accepts that we are trying to move the situation forward in good faith.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Power to establish registration scheme in England]:

Baroness Barker: moved Amendment No. 237B:
	Page 25, line 23, leave out ", without reasonable excuse,"

Baroness Barker: This is a probing amendment. It is an attempt to deal with the issue of the guidance that will be given to local authorities for inspecting private fostering arrangements. We have already spoken at some length—I shall not do it again—about the myriad of informal arrangements, family arrangements and so on that could be considered to be private fostering arrangements. As regards someone privately fostering, it is legitimate to ask the Minister what sort of things "without reasonable excuse" would be deemed to cover, so that we have some basis on which local authorities can carry out such duties as they have under this clause. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I think that this will answer the noble Baroness's question, but probably not as fully as I would like. Clearly, she is very interested in the broader issues of what one would be looking for in private fostering. We are clear that we would not accept the amendment because we think that there might be appropriate circumstances. I queried that and asked what the circumstances might be. There might be a classic emergency situation: for example, a child's parents returning from abroad might be delayed. They would not be able to look after the child and the carer would be asked to continue to care for the child.
	We are nervous about having no exceptions. There are circumstances, which are very much about family relationships, in which it is always important to ensure that people feel confident and therefore we do not have a blanket policy that there is never any excuse. We think that there probably will be an excuse, which may be rare but will certainly occur from time to time. The obvious situation is an emergency, when parents ask a carer to look after a child. That takes us into the world of people thinking about whether they need to register, to notify or whatever. That is when it might not happen.
	Because we do not want to prescribe to that extent and because we think that it is right not to have everything ruled out, we would not want to accept the amendment. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is also interested in looking at the other side of that coin in order to determine the circumstances. I suggest that I write to the noble Baroness between now and Report stage and lay those circumstances out properly, with a copy placed in the Library, so that the noble Baroness would be able to look at it more fully.

Baroness Barker: I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful answer. She will understand that given the somewhat negative architecture of the clause, as we discussed on the previous amendment, it could be read to be yet another watering down of any scheme. I understand what she said and the reality of emergency situations. That is enormously helpful. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 37 agreed to.
	Clause 38 agreed to.
	Clause 39 [Expiry of powers in sections 37 and 38]:
	[Amendment No. 237C not moved.]
	Clause 39 agreed to.
	Clause 40 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Child minding and day care]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 237D:
	Page 39, line 18, at end insert—
	"After section 71 insert— "71A Funding of day care services for children in women's refuges The Secretary of State may make grants to refuge organisations under section 71 for the purpose of providing appropriate day care services for children in need (as defined by section 17(10)) and to enable them to meet the national standards for under 8s day care, and any payments will be subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate.""

Baroness Walmsley: There is a crisis facing children's services in refuges. Refuge organisations in England provide accommodation for about 23,500 children every year and support services for a great many more than that—about 110,000 children. Usually, they offer a wide range of services, including play sessions, outings, one-to-one support, and, crucially, advocacy and aftercare. That is the only widespread dedicated source of support for children who have experienced domestic violence. Despite that, children's services in refuges were not even mentioned in the consultation papers, Safety and Justice and Every Child Matters.
	Recent government initiatives have effectively reduced vital support services for children who have experienced domestic violence. Children's services in refuges are starved of funds because the funding provided through the Supporting People funding regime is not intended for children, despite the fact that children make up two-thirds of the refuge population. In addition, the national standards for under-eights' day care have set staffing ratios and minimum space standards that many refuge organisations cannot afford to meet. Some refuge organisations now have had to limit play sessions to fewer than two hours a day in order to comply with the standards.
	Refuge organisations want to raise the standard of the services that they provide for children. They have welcomed the introduction of the national standards for under-eights' day care. However, many refuge organisations simply do not have enough funding to meet the staffing ratios or to enlarge their playrooms in order to meet the standards.
	In March 2002, a Women's Aid survey of 130 refuge organisations in England found that only 58 per cent could meet the national standards requirements with regard to staffing ratios; 42 per cent could not meet the minimum space standards. The Government recently acknowledged that nearly three-quarters of children on the at-risk register live in households where domestic violence occurs. The paper, Working Together to Safeguard Children, states that it will often be appropriate for children who have experienced domestic violence to be considered as children in need under the Children Act 1989.
	However, the need to provide appropriate support and protection for children who have experienced domestic violence is not currently addressed in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which has already gone through your Lordships' House and is about to go into another place: nor is it in this Bill, which also makes no provision for children who have experienced domestic violence. There is a real danger that those children will fall through the gaps between the two pieces of legislation.
	As we have said on other occasions in Committee on this Bill, it is very important to ask children what they want. When asked what children living with domestic violence need, children involved in a recent study "were astonishingly clear and consistent": they most commonly cited a place of safety, which was closely followed by someone to whom they could talk.
	If children who experience domestic violence are going to have that place of safety and the support for which they are pleading, there is an urgent need to ensure that children's services in refuges can meet the national standards for under-eights' day care. But to do that, they need funding: hence my amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that important group of children and to allow me to pay tribute to the work of the Women's Aid Federation of England and the work in refuges. Amendment No. 237D seeks to give the Secretary of State a power to fund childcare services in women's refuges. The Secretary of State already has the power, under Section 14 of the Education Act, to give financial assistance to any person for purposes related to education or childcare.
	In raising that issue, I know that the noble Baroness has raised some broader points that I shall briefly address. I am fully aware of the issues concerning refuges. I was very pleased to meet with Women's Aid and to assist in the setting up of the protocol with Ofsted, to which I shall turn. As the noble Baroness indicated, there are three specifically relevant issues about which they are concerned.
	The first issue is space. It is my understanding that the Supporting People initiative, which is capital based—an issue for some of the refuges—is able to support refuges in terms of providing space. In a sense, space is a capital issue. Secondly, when I met the Women's Aid Federation, I was aware of what it really described as the catch-22 situation of wanting to be registered and provide high-quality care, but by the nature of its work, finds it difficult to get the right levels of training in order to get that registration.
	That meeting led to the protocol, a copy of which I have for the noble Baroness if she has not had the opportunity to see it, which sets out the flexibility. The purpose behind the flexibility was to allow Ofsted to move towards registration, or indeed to register, while its staff are able to move towards the levels of qualification. That meant that it could access the resources which, currently, in terms of General Sure Start Grant, is about £1.2 billion, which is allocated to local authorities to enable them to get the training. In other words, it got them beyond the catch-22 situation, which said, "If you are not registered you cannot access the funding". They could become registered and then access the funding for training.
	We are of the view that we should continue with the relationship based around local authorities rather than move to centrally based provision. I undertake to look at this again in order to ensure that those arrangements are working well on the ground. Recently we asked Women's Aid Federation England for the figures, and of the 119 refuges which responded to the survey, 25 per cent are registered with Ofsted, 11 per cent are applying for registration and 25 per cent are considering registration. The remainder are not doing so because they offer specialist services and this is not appropriate for them.
	We are fairly confident that, between the powers of the Secretary of State, the protocol that we have established with Ofsted, the capital resource available through the Supporting People initiative, and the amazing work being done through Sure Start where working with children and families who have experienced domestic violence is an absolutely critical element—one that I have been seeking to make sure operates in every Sure Start programme—we have in place the planks on which to build what we hope will be a very positive relationship.
	I understand the broader points about funding made by Women's Aid, but in these particular circumstances I believe that we have put in place the right protocols and support. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may put one or two questions to the Minister. This is an extremely interesting debate and I am grateful for it. The Minister referred to the Sure Start programme. How sure is she—I am sorry, that was a pun—how convinced is she that we will not lose out here? I thought that the Sure Start programme was much more for individuals. I accept that people in women's refuges are treated as individuals when they are there, but how convinced is she that they will not lose out? The figures cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, are worrying. Is she correct to say that at present only 58 per cent of refuges meet the staffing standards, and 42 per cent the space standards? The Minister also quoted a series of figures. I should be grateful for clarification.
	My first query concerns the position of the Sure Start programme. As a lay person in this field, it is worrying that people may fall between two different programmes, which none of us would wish to see. Secondly, have the Government undertaken any research into how many women's aid organisations may fail in the long term to achieve the aims being laid down, thus putting women who need to use those refuges at risk? Thirdly, the noble Baroness mentioned funding. Is she convinced that if women's aid organisations are not able to access funding from this source, they will be able to do so from another one? The organisations do a tremendous amount of good out there by providing a very necessary bolthole in the first instance, often before people move on to receive other forms of help and support over the longer term. These are fairly basic questions.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The questions put by the noble Baroness may be basic, but they are important and I shall try to respond to them. I do not want to confuse the programme offered by Sure Start with the programmes available in refuges. The point I sought to make with regard to Sure Start is that when families end up in refuges, in a sense that is the last resort. Much of the work we are trying to do within the Sure Start programme and elsewhere—we have been talking about awareness raising in schools and so forth in the inter-ministerial group—is to ensure that the point is not reached where someone has to go to a refuge because they need a place of safety. The problem must be tackled in other ways. My personal view is that it would be better if families could stay where they are and the perpetrator should move out, but I appreciate that for many reasons that cannot always be achieved.
	The point of Sure Start programmes, when we know that 30 per cent of domestic violence cases begin in pregnancy, is that they deal with women who have just become pregnant. They are able to identify those women who are at risk of suffering domestic violence and put in place support immediately either to prevent the problem escalating or to deal with it before it reaches the point where someone has to go to a refuge or, indeed, to help them move into one. The approach is not one of "either/or", but of "both/and" in terms of opportunity and provision. We want the programmes to be widely supportive, and we continue to look at this area.
	I am sure that the noble Baroness quoted the correct figures regarding space in refuges. I do not have them with me, but I know that she would have done so. In my response I wanted to make it clear that we are looking at the issue and that I am keen to ensure that the resources are available, albeit that they are resources that people must access, thus inevitably raising issues about priorities and so forth. On the space question, because the Supporting People initiative is capital based, it is a source that refuges can look to in order to access help in terms of providing space, which I know is a major issue.
	On qualifications and the work being undertaken in that area, Women's Aid is in discussions with Ofsted and the protocol was drawn up specifically to help refuges understand that we do not seek to prevent them carrying on with their excellent work by putting them into the Catch 22 situation I described earlier. We are enabling them to become registered and thus able to access the local authority funding we have put in place to support staff training and so forth. The protocol is beginning to work, and the proof of that is in the increased number of registrations now coming through.
	I cannot answer the question put by the noble Baroness on whether on assessment some refuges might fail, but I know that Women's Aid is looking at this carefully and will join in with discussions between ourselves and Ofsted to see what more needs to be done. However, I am encouraged to see that the work seems to be going well thus far. Moreover, I am sure that when representatives of Women's Aid read this exchange, if there are any problems they will be round to see us, which is absolutely right.
	I hope that I have answered all the questions put to me by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Walmsley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, and in particular for pointing out that the Secretary of State already has the power to give money to refuges for these purposes. Perhaps we should use this debate to encourage him to do that. Although it is welcome to hear from the noble Baroness that capital funding is coming forward, which will help with problems regarding space, the other issue is that of staffing ratios.
	The difficulty faced by refuges on staffing ratios is that they have to be enormously flexible. They never know what they need to provide and thus they cannot plan. They do not know how many children may come to them tomorrow in an emergency. They will always need to maintain an overly generous staffing relationship in order to take account of sudden needs for their services.
	I shall withdraw my amendment if the noble Baroness will promise to have a word with her right honourable friend the Secretary of State and ask him to come up with a bit more money.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 4 agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 238:
	Before Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
	"DUTY OF SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
	The governing body of each maintained school, and the proprietors of each academy, city college and non-maintained special school shall promote the educational achievement of every child looked after by a local authority who is on the roll of the school."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The purpose of this amendment is to emphasise the fact that the duty to promote educational achievement lies not only with the local education authority, as set out in Clause 43, but also with school governing bodies and that looked-after children have a special reason for such support.
	Clause 43 places a specific duty on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children, but in practice the local authority will have to rely on schools to fulfil that function. The record is not good. Children in public care achieve poorly at school. The Government Social Exclusion Unit report, A Better Education for Children in Care, published in 2001, showed that children in care have particularly low levels of attainment. Only 8 per cent of 16 year-olds who had spent at least one year in care achieved five GCSE at grades A to C compared with half of other young people.
	The key performance indicator for the DfES is to narrow substantially the gap between educational achievement and participation of children in care and that of their peers by 2006. It is interesting to note that in the department's annual report, the words "not yet assessed" appear on page 20 against the entry for the latest development towards that achievement. Perhaps the words "not yet assessed" need to apply to the current provisions of the Bill, which do not place any such duty on schools.
	As a society, we need to make it absolutely clear that we expect schools to do their utmost to promote the educational achievement of this group of young people whose lives have been disrupted through no fault of their own and who, without support during this important stage in their lives, will find it difficult to develop and become successful adults. In these days of performance indicators and league tables, too many schools attempt to duck such responsibilities if they can. Only a minority do so, but the temptation is there.
	The Minister assured the Committee last Thursday, on the general issue of school involvement in Every Child Matters, that the LEA guidance to schools would secure their engagement. This may be the case for the "general" involvement of schools but the amendment concerns the "particular" involvement of all schools with this group of vulnerable children. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: We have much sympathy with the amendment and agree that it is worrying that children in care tend to be the under-achievers of this world. Certainly it is important for them to have a new start in life, and obtaining some kind of qualifications will lead to better openings for them in future. The noble Baroness has raised a very important point and I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the matter. The second amendment in the group concerns the educational needs of such children and requires that schools should appoint a governor to be specifically responsible for them.
	My concern is that the Bill should reflect the aspirations that we have for "all" children. It may appear that I am slightly downplaying the amendment—I hope that the noble Baroness will take this in the spirit in which it is meant—but education is crucial to every single child. Whether or not children come from so-called better settled families or better educated families is, in some ways, irrelevant to the wish that we all have that every child should have opportunities at the right time.
	While we have great sympathy with the amendment, the concern I am trying to express is that, whatever we do with the Bill, we must make sure that we do not jeopardise the chances of all children.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should point out to the noble Baroness that the reason for bringing forward the amendment is that Clause 43 deals with looked after children. We are anxious to point out that although the clause refers to local education authorities, the duty should be as much with the schools because they have the day-to-day contact.

Baroness Byford: I accept what the noble Baroness says. I do not disagree with that at all—we are indeed looking at the clause in that light—but the fear I am trying to express is that, should the Government accept the amendment, they will still need to bear in mind that we have to deal with all children equally at every stage through school.
	I accept that many children have difficult starts and that that is why the noble Baroness has brought forward this important amendment, but we have to strike a balance. On previous amendments we have debated whether or not we want to lay down specific guidelines or give encouragement; we believe that all children should have an equal start.

The Earl of Listowel: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 243B, which stands in my name. Before I do so, however, I should point out that I have had the matter of timing drawn to my attention.
	I support the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. With the personal educational plans and designated teachers in schools for children in care, the Government have introduced important new tools. However, I think the Minister will acknowledge that they are not used as consistently and effectively as they should be. We need to consider the issue of leadership in schools and whether these new tools would work more effectively if it was brought fully to bear on the matter.
	My amendment seeks to ensure that school governing bodies should have a designated governor with special responsibility for the promotion of the educational achievement of children in public care. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, alluded to the Social Exclusion Unit report A better education for children in care and its comments on the role of governors. In section 10.9 it states:
	"Governing bodies should be informed about the number and overall attainment levels of children in care in their schools . . . Local authorities, in their role as corporate parents, could also expect LEA governors to act as 'designated governors' in schools and nursery schools to champion and promote the needs of children in care and monitor educational outcomes. This should not detract from other governors, who might otherwise be well placed to support children in care, from taking on this role".
	In Appendix C, paragraph 13 of the Government recommendations for local action provides for,
	"LEA governors to act as 'designated governors' in schools and nurseries".
	I hope, therefore, that the Government will feel sympathetic towards the amendment standing in my name as it seems to be very close to what the Social Exclusion Unit recommends.
	One of the assistants to a Member of the other House, who grew up in Tottenham in North London, is, I believe, the head governor of a primary school in a tough area, where she had been burgled three times in the past year. She was very pleased when last we spoke because the school had been inspected by Ofsted and the governors had been particularly commended for their work in the school. She put the governors' achievements down to the fact that the decision had been taken to designate each governor with a particular function in the school. This supports the amendment. I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that she will be sympathetic towards this modest proposal.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: A number of noble Lords feel particularly strongly about looked after children and have raised the matter on a number of occasions, not only when debating the Bill. The very poor educational attainment of looked after children brings to mind how important it will be for their futures—and for all our futures—that they should be paid special attention.
	I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, because I do not think that what is being proposed is positive discrimination in the sense of equal opportunities and so on; I believe it gives proper attention to the group.
	As to governors having a special responsibility in this area, I take the point of my noble friend Lord Listowel about one particular governor. Years ago, when I headed an inquiry into local authority residential homes, we made the same kind of suggestion that a member of the local authority should have personal responsibility, and in this way he could go in and out of such establishments at any time.
	I hope the Minister will support the amendment because it relates to a very important group of children.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I say "Hear, hear!" to the fact that this is a very important group of children. I am grateful that these issues have been raised.
	The report of the Social Exclusion Unit specifically looked at and underlined the reasons why this group of children has such unacceptable levels of educational achievement. It referred to five factors: instability; time spent out of school; lack of extra help with education; insufficient support and encouragement from home; and poor emotional, physical and mental health.
	We believe that those five key findings indicate that we need to place a duty on the corporate parent. I am not ruling out the importance of schools, but all five key findings lead to the local authority. The local authority, as corporate parent, can deal with the issues of instability, time out of school, lack of extra help, insufficient support and health.
	We are very committed to implementing that report, which specifically led us to the responsibility that we have undertaken in Clause 43. From what noble Lords have said, I think there is a great deal of support for that. But that is why the focus is there and not on schools, which is important.
	Although we recognise the important role that schools play, when I talk to people about what they are asking of schools, they quite often discuss admissions rather than what happens in the school. The admissions forums are charged with seeing this group of children as their number one priority.
	Issues of admission, which I know the noble Earl feels very strongly about, would not be resolved through the amendment that would put a duty on schools, because it would apply only to the children already in the schools. The issues of concern, such as why children do not achieve, are best addressed through the corporate parent.
	I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford; I have said consistently throughout the proceedings on the Bill that I am doing everything I can to avoid lists. I recognise the problem, but we think that addressing it by giving the duty to the corporate parent, not the school, is the way forward. For that reason, I will resist the amendment.
	I hope the noble Earl will not mind my saying that there is an impracticality built into the amendment concerning school governing bodies. With 25,000 schools and 60,000 looked-after children, many schools will have maybe a handful of children, others none, and so on. We do not think the way forward is to have a specific duty under the Bill. However, we are not against the idea of a governor taking responsibility for looked-after children—in fact, it is a very good idea. That might be a logical conclusion with regard to local authority governors because of the duty we have placed on them.
	We are committed to publishing new guidance for local authorities on fulfilling their duties under Clause 43. I am happy to give the Committee an undertaking that the guidance will address the issue of a designated governor, alongside enhancing and enforcing the designated teacher, which we already have. I hope that the noble Earl will feel content that this is an issue for guidance.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am very grateful to the Minister for her response and to other noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I take on board the points that she has made and the reasoning behind why the Bill gives local authorities this responsibility rather than schools.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It is probably a way forward.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I very much appreciate the Minister's helpful response and hope she will not think it churlish of me to respond briefly at this point. Is she satisfied that the personal education plans are made as much use of in schools as they could be? They carry with them—or can do—additional funding for children who benefit from them. The Minister also said how the role of designated teachers would be reinforced by the guidance. Will she acknowledge that they are not being used as well as they should be? Does she feel that these two areas are being pushed as hard as they should be?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I think IEPs and personal plans are very important. There is nothing to suggest that they are not being used well. My understanding is that designated teachers are working well, but we want to make sure that we strengthen that role because, as the noble Earl indicates, it is critical for children. We will be looking again to make sure that the guidance reflects that. I hope that that will give the kind of impetus that the noble Earl is looking for, together with what I have said about guidance.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her clarification. Working through governors is probably the way forward on this issue. Nevertheless, one reason for raising this point was to clarify the fact that schools have a part to play. It goes back to our discussions on partnership and the need for schools to be partners alongside others within the framework of the children's services authority. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 41 [Intervention]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 238A:
	Page 27, line 22, leave out "(for all purposes)"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 238A, I shall also speak to Amendments No. 239, 239A and 239C. These are all probing amendments which seek to clarify the Secretary of State's powers of intervention under Clause 41.
	Amendment No. 238A seeks clarification about what "for all purposes" means in Clause 41. If the local authorities are to be held to account, with the possibility of intervention, for their relevant functions in relation to children's services, it is important that the precise implications of those three words are made clear, either in the Bill or in the guidance. I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification.
	Amendments Nos. 239 and 239A deal with the power of the Secretary of State to intervene and seek to make it absolutely clear that the intervention, as a result of poorly performing social service functions, does not give the Secretary of State power to intervene in educational functions unless these functions, too, are being carried out poorly.
	Section 497A of the Education Act 1996, as amended by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education Act 2002, already confers powers on the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to intervene where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an LEA is failing in any respect to perform any of the functions as an LEA.
	Section 60 of the Education Act 2002 amended this section of the 1996 Act to allow the Secretary of State or the Assembly to act in respect of all LEA functions, not just those relating to the provision of education for persons of compulsory school age or education of registered pupils of any age at schools maintained by the authority.
	Ofsted has highlighted the progress made by authorities in its report Local Education Authorities and School Improvement 1996–2001. The report stated that recent inspections had increasingly found LEAs to be satisfactory or good. It states:
	"Overall inspection has shown that LEAs have improved. Furthermore, it has shown that they have the capacity to improve further, mainly as a result of their refocusing of work, their improved project management and their better use of management information to plan tasks".
	The chief inspector's annual report for 2002–03 confirmed that the work of LEAs continued to improve. The report stated that recent inspections have increasingly found LEAs to be satisfactory or good. We are anxious that such progress should not be interrupted or damaged because of a breakdown of other functions. In that respect, the LEA functions should not be interrupted by a need to intervene in relation to social service functions.
	Amendment No. 239C seeks to probe the Government in relation to the outcomes of inspection and the Secretary of State's powers of intervention. It intends that the trigger for intervention is two inspections of a children's service authority's functions. The Government's proposals signal major changes to LEAs and their education departments. We argue that the radical restructuring involved will take time to bed down, and that too violent a transition could endanger expert education teams in successful LEAs and destabilise those LEAs which are struggling to become effective.
	The examples of successful service integration in Every Child Matters need to be viewed with some caution. Hertfordshire, for example, is a long-established, effective and highly rated authority which has pursued the integrated services route on its own initiative rather than under government direction or imposition. Even so, it is too early to judge its sustainability or success. Many senior officers in LEAs have grave reservations about whether all LEAs are in a position to make the same radical changes that they are being required to make, even within the extended timetable that is outlined, without risking major institutional failure.
	In order for the LEAs to be able to undertake the functions set out in Every Child Matters, they need both resources and experienced and expert personnel who are able to support schools at all stages of the provision of children's services. The amendment would allow local authorities time and any additional support necessary to come up with and implement strategies for improvement, prior to being deemed as failing. I beg to move.

Earl Howe: Amendment No. 240 is in this group. As the Minister has made clear, Clause 41 of the Bill permits the Secretary of State to intervene when local authorities are failing to discharge functions relating to children's services. It extends existing powers of intervention in line with those relating to education services, including social services functions relating to children and to children leaving care.
	I have no difficulty with ministerial default powers which are there to be used when absolutely necessary. However, an active intervention of this kind into the affairs of a democratically elected local authority should be very much a last resort. It is also important that the scale of the intervention is proportionate to the mischief, if I can use that term. There needs to be a clear focus on precisely which elements of the service require improvement rather than deeming the whole of an authority's children's services to be failing and weighing in across the board. The partnership arrangements underpinning the delivery of services to children and families are very complex. If that fact is not sufficiently recognised there is a danger that, when an intervention does occur, services will become dislocated from local partners, with regrettable results.
	It would be helpful to hear from the Minister why these extended powers—over and above those already available—are thought to be necessary. I very much hope that there will be no difference between us on the substance of the amendment and that she can provide some robust reassurances to make the amendment unnecessary.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall certainly try to do that for the noble Earl. The purpose behind what we are doing is to provide the type of integration that we want for children and to recognise that that has implications for local authorities. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, used Hertfordshire as her example. Although I played only a peripheral role there as chair of the health authority, it has been an interesting experience to watch. As the noble Baroness said—and I agree—these are not easy things to do. Managers and staff must work differently. Therefore it is right that we think carefully about how successful they are being and so forth. There is little between us, but I will endeavour to explain precisely what is meant and allay the concerns of the noble Earl.
	The phrase "for all purposes" is included in Clause 41(6) because it clarifies that the Secretary of State can, in a single direction, include education and children's social services functions when expedient to ensure consistency and improvements across the integrated services. On Amendments Nos. 239, 238A and 239A, we see the use of statutory powers as a last resort, but an important measure to include in Clause 41(6) where necessary. As noble Lords know, it allows directions to cover a group of functions wherever that will secure improvement in integrated services as a whole.
	I understand what noble Lords are looking for in their amendments, but they would limit the flexibility. For example, when failings are identified at senior management level, the ability to group functions within a direction must be available to address any weakness across a local authority's children's services. To take the example of an integrated service in which the senior management team is weak, which sadly might happen, and identification through inspection reveals a problem, one must be able to consider its role across all the services for which it is responsible.
	Similarly, to take an example pertinent to this afternoon's discussion about looked-after children, we want to be able to respond flexibly to develop solutions across the whole of an integrated service. I identified the five areas that young people themselves felt needed to be addressed and which were identified in research by the Social Exclusion Unit. Those five areas are across a range of different services—mental and physical health, education and so forth. Therefore, one must be able to think about an integrated approach if there seems to be a failing. There is no intention to label as failing a whole authority when only some services are found to be failing. Nor do we intend to use the powers of intervention across a broad range of functions in all instances of failure.
	The amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would establish a different threshold for the use of intervention powers with respect to children's social services and education functions. In education, the statutory powers have been used only 12 times in respect of nine local authorities. In all those cases, Ofsted commented favourably on the results. The remaining 21 "formal" intervention cases have not involved the use of statutory powers.
	In social services, the vast majority of intervention work has not involved the use of statutory powers. Solutions have included better monitored performance management plans and developing management capacity through the type of expert teams that noble Lords mentioned. The use of statutory powers will be considered where we have independent evidence of serious failure which, for example, could lead to services that fail to secure the safety and welfare of children. The powers of direction will be invoked only in proportion to the extent and nature of the failure identified. The most extreme forms of intervention, directing the outsourcing of services in particular, will only be used—if ever—when there is compelling evidence of serious failure and the inability of the authority concerned to tackle that failure within a reasonable timescale.
	Let us be clear; the powers of intervention under Section 497A of the Education Act 1996 and in the Bill can be used only with regard to education functions and those functions set out in subsection (2) of Clause 41; not to any other functions of a local authority, or indeed to the functions of any other body. When failings are found in the arrangements for co-operation, safeguarding and promoting welfare, any intervention will be concerned with improving those arrangements only, not with intervening in the services delivered through these arrangements which are not education or social services functions. For example, the intervention powers do not extend to health functions, but the principle of what I said stands. We need to work within the framework.
	The overall framework for engagement and intervention in children's services is being discussed, and will continue to be discussed with key stakeholders and practitioners before being finalised. I recognise the concerns that have been raised. We see the power as a last resort. It must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the failure identified with due regard to local arrangements and the views of national and local partners. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured that this is a proportionate power to be worked out with our key stakeholders recognising the need to support integrated services.
	On Amendment No. 239C, when inspection identifies deteriorating services, we must be able to intervene as appropriate and not have to wait until a second joint area review. As I have already stated, the use of statutory powers will be a last resort, but they must be available to deal with serious failure immediately and effectively where necessary. We must not allow any such situation to continue. Intervention powers can be deployed as a result of other evidence—such as annual judgments of local authorities' social services, which have provided the basis for a great deal of effective engagement, focussed on supporting and building capacity within an organisation. That programme has also allowed for the identification of deteriorating services year on year, rather than waiting for more infrequent points within an inspection cycle.
	On the basis that this is a last resort, proportionate and about integrated services and recognising the role of working with our key stakeholders, I hope that I have provided reassurance to noble Lords and that they will not press their amendments.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. As I emphasised at the beginning, the amendments were probing amendments, and it has been useful to get clarification from the Minister. As she also emphasised, this is a matter of time. At the moment, much is still in the melting pot. We will see whether the powers are proportionate over the course of time. Only time will tell on these issues. We may need to return to them. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 239 to 239A not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 239B:
	Page 27, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purpose of the operation of section 497A of that Act in relation to the functions mentioned in subsection (2) above, the conditions specified by the Secretary of State in relation to any person or persons performing functions on behalf of the authority in accordance with any direction given under that section shall include a condition that that person, being a body, shall not derive any profit from the performance of those functions for distribution to members of that body corporate whether by way of dividend on shares or otherwise."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In speaking to Amendment No. 239B I shall also speak to Amendment No. 239D. The purpose of these two amendments is to probe the Government's intentions in relation to the provision of children's services and the powers of intervention given to the Secretary of State under Clause 41. This is a slightly different tack on the issue that we spoke about in the last set of amendments.
	Amendment No. 239B seeks to probe how far it is envisaged that the private sector should contribute to the provision of privately funded children's services. It has been six years since the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 expanded the powers of intervention to allow private sector provision in education in the maintained sector. The NUT has been monitoring this and the evidence that it has collected has shown that the vast majority of LEAs that received Ofsted reports highlighting serious weaknesses have now been categorised as satisfactory or above.
	LEAs have achieved dramatic improvements without intervention and have achieved higher standards than many of those with private sector partners. LEAs that have been required by the Government to adopt private sector support and intervention have not improved as much as authorities where interventions involved non-private sector and non-profit making strategies. In these authorities, improvement has been, at best, patchy and, at worst, has gone into reverse. For example, the private firm running Islington's schools has been fined more than £500,000 for failing to hit key education performance targets. Serco, operating under the name Education Bradford, failed to meet its education performance targets for 2002. Nord Anglia's contract was not renewed and Hackney education is now run by Hackney Education Trust, an independent body chaired by Mike Tomlinson, the former Chief Inspector of Schools. Hackney's third Ofsted inspection report, published in January 2004, stated that the Learning Trust, under Mike Tomlinson, had been making rapid progress and that the impact of the trust's work was beginning to come through.
	By contrast, partnership models with other LEAs have proved rather more effective and cost-efficient in improving LEA services compared with the outsourcing involved with the private sector. The partnership approach with other LEAs adopted by Liverpool and Rochdale or the partnership board model of Leicester and Bristol are, on the evidence collected by the NUT, far more successful. These approaches are much more likely to provide long-term, sustainable change circumstances, develop a public sector ethos and avoid the charges of profit making and privatisation.
	The Amendment seeks to steer any such interventions under Section 247A of the 1996 Act towards the non-profit partnership model and away from the private enterprise model. I beg to move.
	Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We believe, as I believe the noble Baroness believes, that high standards are critical if we are to deliver high quality services to our children and young people and the new arrangements are designed to help to secure that. Providers of care services have to comply with a range of regulatory requirements and standards and this will remain the case whether or not local authorities are subject to intervention.
	As I have already stated, the use of statutory powers will be a last resort and outsourcing is only one of the options that might be considered in tailoring solutions to service failure. The private "for profit" sector is not the only option, as the noble Baroness has indicated that she is well aware, for the outsourcing of local authority functions; public, voluntary and not-for-profit bodies could also be used, separately, in partnership with each other, or, indeed, with a private organisation.
	The number, size and type of organisations that have the capacity and expertise to work with authorities to turn round failing services will vary greatly and there will be a number of different ways in which they may be involved. Our view is that where private organisations are able to deliver better services that offer better value for money, there should not be artificial barriers to engaging with that sector. We will seek to implement the most effective and appropriate solution to the problems an authority is facing, regardless of which sector potential partners might operate in.
	Where it is deemed necessary to outsource local authority functions, a competitive tendering process is entered into to provide the services in question. That is open to organisations from all sectors. Authorities are directed to enter into contractual arrangements only where the proposed services offer value for money and effective solutions. The performance of the partner organisation is tightly managed through the contract. Where the body is a profit making one, the level of profit can be capped as necessary in the terms of the agreement.
	We understand that Ofsted has so far commented favourably in all outsourcing cases on the work carried out by private sector contractors in education. Private sector partners have been involved in securing expertise with successful performance action teams, which have supported local authorities' social services departments.
	Our belief is that limiting the range of partners that authorities could work with in intervention cases would restrict our ability to draw on the kind of expertise to effect the right kind of solutions for children as quickly as possible. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Our concern is that there have been occasions when the Government have seemed to prefer private sector contractors to public sector partnership arrangements. I am glad to have her assurance that they always look to the most effective partner. There is a great deal of evidence to show that quite a lot of partnership arrangements where there have been two local education authorities working in conjunction with each other have worked very well. I would disagree with her somewhat as I think that Ofsted has not always found the private sector partners to be totally satisfactory. There have been a number of relatively well publicised occasions when things have not worked out all that well. However, I am grateful to her for the assurances that she has given and in light of them, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 239C and 239D not moved.]
	Clause 41 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 240 not moved.]

Baroness Barker: moved Amendment No. 240A:
	After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
	"LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
	In Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (local authority support for children and families), after paragraph 12(b) insert—
	"(bb) as to the minimum payments to be made by local authorities for the maintenance of children placed with local authority foster parents;"."

Baroness Barker: We return to another piece of business that is a follow-on from the Adoption and Children Act. The issue of support for people who adopt and foster children was an ongoing part of our deliberations in this House during the passage of that legislation. One of the consequences of that Act has been the increased recognition by local authorities that they have a duty to assess, but the provision of support to people who adopt and foster children is somewhat patchy.
	This amendment specifically addresses the issue of allowances paid to foster carers. Within the past two weeks, we have seen reports that show what people who work in this field have known for a very long time, which is that there is a crisis within the fostering service. It is a service and a very valuable one. In Every Child Matters the Government recognised that there are 7,000 to 8,000 fewer foster carers than are needed. It is quite clear that there are many different reasons for that: different working patterns are certainly one of them. However, one of the key reasons that has emerged time and time again in surveys of foster carers is that of finance. It is not cheap to look after children well. Financial considerations apply, just as they do for birth parents.
	Through talking extensively to foster carers, the Fostering Network discovered that a great disparity applies throughout the country with different local authorities paying completely different rates to foster parents. The rates vary arbitrarily and quite extensively. Neighbouring authorities may pay rates that differ by up to £100 per week. Further, from April 2004, foster carers in some authorities are paid a minimum allowance ranging from £56 per week for a child aged nought to seven to £72 per week for a child aged 13 to 15, when the Fostering Network recommends that the minimum rates be £108 and £154 respectively. It is not a case of foster carers profiting in any way from having children within their care, but of being able to meet the basic living needs of those children.
	The results of a survey published in 2003 based on figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research and drawing on the Government's own expenditure and food survey of 2001–02 found that in a household where one parent works full-time and another part-time, the average cost of looking after a child is £129 a week. We should compare that with the sums being paid by some local authorities. The Fostering Network talked to foster parents who provided many graphic expressions of what it is like trying to deal with this matter on a day-to-day basis. A foster carer talked movingly of the cost of buying trainers and of how the fostering allowance did not cover that expenditure, never mind luxury items.
	During the passage of the Adoption and Children Act your Lordships recognised that fostering is strategically a very, very important service in terms of looking after children. Although it is sometimes but not always of a temporary nature, that care in a family situation can be of major importance to children who by definition have suffered from some disruption in their lives. Having fostering placements that are sustainable is important. Plenty of research is available that demonstrates clearly that every time a child is moved to a different care setting, there is some negative impact on that child's life. If we do not recognise that fostering services are important, need to be sustained and are under great strain at the moment, by definition we shall eventually subject children who need stability more than anything else to a future of uncertainty and of being moved between different agencies. We know from all the research on adoption and fostering that in so doing we shall severely limit their life chances in the longer term.
	Being a foster carer is a tremendous responsibility. In many ways we are sometimes rather patronising about foster carers. We see them as people who do a marvellous job and have hearts of gold. They do but they face practical realities too. The amendment seeks to recognise that foster caring is a service and that in many cases foster carers need support and training to help them to deal with difficult children. That is important. I beg to move.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I strongly support the amendment to which I have added my name. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it.
	As we have heard, Fostering Fortnight ended a few days ago. Its aim was to encourage more people to put themselves forward as potential foster carers. I believe that the estimated shortage of places is about 8,000. That takes account of the fact that there are also currently 37,000 foster families in the UK. However, that gap is particularly worrying when we are all trying to ensure that as many children as possible are brought up in family homes rather than within local authority children's homes.
	Surely it is time to ensure that all local authorities pay at least the basic minimum cost to these dedicated citizens who are prepared to undertake this important and challenging work. The fact that some 53 per cent of authorities are paying less than that is an appalling comment on their priorities.
	Not only would proper remuneration for foster families make it more likely that more families would volunteer for this role, but with more families prepared to do so, the likelihood of getting a better match for each individual child, and, indeed, of not splitting up families, would be much greater.
	I refer specifically to the role of grandparents. We are all getting older but we are all getting older at a later stage and, as I said only a couple of days ago, we are all rather more active than older people used to be in previous generations. With proper financial and, I stress, practical, support, many more grandparents and other members of the family could undertake this important role. That would provide not just an essential family background in which those children could grow up, but also the added benefit of growing up with part of their own family. This is a crucially important matter. I hope that the Government will give the amendment sympathetic support.

Earl Howe: This is, indeed, a very important issue and I support all that both noble Baronesses have said about it.
	I do not think that we need be concerned today to fix the precise amount of money appropriate for a minimum fostering allowance. The important issue is to agree that there should be such a minimum. There is a major point of principle at the heart of this concern. Becoming a foster parent is not something you do in order to line your own pockets; you do it for other more idealistic reasons. But in looking after a foster child, you are nevertheless relieving the state of a burden which it would otherwise have to carry at a very considerable financial cost. It is not reasonable to expect foster carers to shoulder the costs of a child's keep without some meaningful contribution from the public purse. There is currently a serious national shortage of suitable foster carers: something has to be done to address that.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, the postcode lottery in fostering allowances is quite blatant. More than half of all local authorities pay below the Fostering Network's minimum rates, but there is no rhyme or reason to this variation beyond stretched local authority budgets. The national minimum standards are in place and they are good news, but one has to ask whether they are really enough if they are not having the desired effect on allowances.
	I am aware of some examples of very low allowances being paid. There is a slight caution on these figures as some of them date from last year, but they are not, I think, far out. Against a recommended minimum of around £108 a week for a child up to the age of seven, in Bolton the rate is £56.44. In Oldham it is two pounds less. In Sheffield it is around the recommended minimum—it is £105.74. In Hounslow the weekly payment is £246.22. In Barnet it is no less than £310. That is a near six-fold variation between the highest and the lowest.
	Local authorities paying low rates have been criticised for so doing by the National Care Standards Commission, but there is nothing that the commission or its successor can do if the criticism is ignored. There can be no justification for not paying a minimum allowance if we are really committed to improving the life chances of our most disadvantaged children. There is no doubt that many people are put off applying to become foster carers because they simply cannot afford it.
	The direct consequence of having such a restricted pool of foster carers, as we now have, is that foster children will be moved more often, sometimes away from their communities, causing them even more disruption. Disruption, as we know, is highly damaging to a child's development. One then finds that previously difficult children become even more difficult; foster carers become disillusioned and some leave the service altogether. It is a vicious spiral which a measure of strategic financial underpinning might well ameliorate significantly. I very much hope that the Minister will consider the amendment in a positive spirit.

The Earl of Listowel: I support all that has been said. Perhaps I might add that one in four looked-after children is placed out of their local authority as a consequence of there being a lack of choice among foster carers in their own local authority area. That is very much against those children's interests, because we do wish them to be reunited, and certainly to keep in touch, with their families. One in seven of those children experience more than three placements each year. Again, it has much to do with not having the right choice of foster carers. While only 10 per cent have any involvement with the criminal justice system before entering care, half of children in custody and a quarter of the adult prison population have been through care. We are not doing enough to intervene effectively with these people and it is crucial that foster carers are properly supported in this job.

Baroness Andrews: Noble Lords have been extremely eloquent in describing the situation in foster care and the invaluable contribution that foster carers make, the challenges they face and some of the issues that are now arising about recruitment and retention. It is for that reason that we are very much aware of the difficulties in recruiting and retaining more foster carers. That is precisely why we have begun by developing the Choice Protects programme which has a specific emphasis on fostering services. We are putting £113 million into that over the next three years, which will be ring-fenced to help local authorities improve services for all looked-after children living away from home.
	In the current year we have asked local authorities to use that funding to ensure compliance with the national minimum standards for fostering services and to support good quality planning and commissioning of services. Many local authorities have used the Choice Protects funding to enhance the allowances and fees they pay to their foster carers. It is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out graphically, as did other noble Lords, that allowances vary considerably across the country. In part, that reflects the cost of living and partly reflects the availability of foster carers. That tends to be a vicious circle and we recognise, as do local authorities, that when they fail to recognise the costs of caring it is more difficult to recruit and retain.
	The national minimum standards for fostering services make it clear that foster carers should receive an allowance and agreed expenses which cover the full cost of caring for each child or young person placed with them. It is vital that no foster carer is penalised financially as a result of caring for a child. The answer to the noble Earl is that that should not be at the expense of the family.
	Recruiting and retaining is not simply about money, it is also about training and support, and we know that foster carers have felt isolated over the years. That is precisely why the Choice Protects money is going into developing support networks that they know about and can use. We are well aware of the current campaign to introduce a standard national allowance for foster carers. This raises complex issues and we are giving them careful consideration. I have listened very closely to the arguments of noble Lords and we will reflect on them. We will also think further on the important issues being raised by those who are campaigning on these issues. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for her reply and I am heartened by it. There are parallels to adoption allowances as well and we know from many years of data that those local authorities which refused point blank—and there is still one—to pay adoption allowances saw that reflected in the numbers of children adopted. I hear what the Minister says about the availability of support, and we can return to those arguments. I am heartened that she will look at this question of costs, because for every bus that one sees around London with appeals for people to become foster carers I suspect that there are many people who are looking at those adverts and responding to them, only to be put off by this particular issue. That is a terrible waste of everyone's time and talent. However, on the basis of the Minister's comments I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 241 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Haskel: There is a slight error on the groupings list. Amendment No. 242 has been withdrawn, so the next group will be Amendments Nos. 243 and 243B.

[Amendment No. 242 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 42 agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Duty of local authorities to promote educational achievement]:

The Earl of Listowel: moved Amendment No. 243:
	Page 27, line 41, at end insert "and emotional wellbeing"

The Earl of Listowel: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, together with improving the duty to improve the educational attainment of children in care, there is attached an additional duty to improve their emotional well-being. There is such a close interconnection between those two aspects of the life of a child in care. If a child in care's schooling fails, if he loses his school place and is excluded, it becomes far more difficult to sustain the foster placement. One only needs to think of the position that the foster carer is in with that child at home for most of the day; there is the risk of that foster placement collapsing, and that will contribute to his worsening emotional state and make it harder for him to succeed in school again.
	As a young care leaver recently said to us at a meeting attended by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, he found it so hard to concentrate on his studies, he had so much on his mind that he could not engage with education, because his emotional needs were not being addressed. Those matters are so closely interlinked.
	As an illustration of that, the achievement rate at GCSE level at a children's home in south London that I visited recently was, I think, 67 per cent of children receiving five or more GCSEs at A-G grade. For children's homes in 2001 the achievement was 7 per cent. That is an immense difference. That was very much because there was close co-operation on the educational and emotional sides of the work done there and a close partnership with the local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS). The local mental health practitioners would go and sit in the children's home and have lunch with the children, so that they could be easily approached by the children, and looking for help was not seen as stigmatising. The practitioners met with the staff each week to discuss the children's cases and the impact that working with such difficult children had on the staff.
	They were there at the end of a telephone at any time. If there was a crisis, the staff could pick up a telephone and talk to the mental health professionals. The members of staff were all trained in the Webster-Stratton model of parenting. That is a standard parenting model that has proved so effective and they were trained on it by the local CAMHS team.
	Then on the other side, with the educational team, there was a teacher who was there to tutor the children, but also to act as their advocate, to help them get into mainstream schooling. The charity took a very positive stance in ensuring that the children got access to mainstream schooling and it would always start the legal process if a child was not taken back into school within 20 days. This joint method was so effective in that particular case.
	I recognise that the Government may say that this amendment is otiose, given what is already available on welfare in the Children Act. Although I will look carefully at what the Government say on this matter, one could equally use the same arguments underlying the amendments to which this amendment is linked. Surely the educational attainment of children in care is equally a matter of their welfare, yet the Government have stated that on the front of the Bill. I will look at that and listen with interest to the Minister's response, but there is an opportunity here to make such a difference to the lives of these children.
	The Government have appointed regional development officers for child and adolescent mental health across the country. I spoke recently with a regional development officer who said that partnership between child and adolescent mental health and frontline workers is improving, but there is still an awful long way to go. There is a huge cultural change to make. By putting this amendment on the face of the Bill—or something similar to this amendment—one can really contribute to changing the culture and improving better partnership working in this crucial area for these children. I look forward to the Minister's response on those points.
	Perhaps I can also speak to Amendment No. 243B on the "duty of local authorities to provide child assistance". The purpose of this amendment is to allow the child to have the option of making use of an advocate when he is first taken into care, when the crucial decisions about his care plan are being formulated, and to provide for future reviews of the care plan when the child will again have access to an advocate.
	This amendment is modelled on an amendment to the Children Act, brought in as Section 119 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which allows a child in care or a care leaver the right to an advocate when he has a complaint to make.
	In the introduction to the Government's guidance, Get it Sorted, it is made plain that representations "which are not complaints" are also covered. It states:
	"For example, children and young people should be able to secure the support of an advocate in putting forward representations for a change to be made in the service they receive, or the establishment they live in, without this having to be framed first as a specific complaint".
	The helpful guidance also points out in section 3.10:
	"The advocate's role is to help the child at the earliest possible stage. Successful early involvement could prevent young people having to use a complaints procedure at all".
	I hope that that is helpful in seeing that it may be helpful for a child to have the option of bringing in an advocate not simply when a complaint needs to be made, but when those crucial decisions are made about the care plan.
	There is also a human rights case to make here. Mr Justice Munby, in a recent lecture to the National Youth Advisory Service, described that case under Article 8. Given the time this afternoon, I shall not go into detail on that particular decision.
	The Government may be concerned about the numbers of professionals we are bringing into contact with children in care. I recognise that, but one must also appreciate that when the child first arrives in care, the social worker present at that first care plan meeting will also have been involved in the decision, or made the decision, whether to take that child into care. So the child may be somewhat suspicious of the social worker. I am not saying that that point of view is at all justified, but it puts the child in a difficult position, and it is very important to obtain the wishes and feelings of the child in that first meeting.
	The Government have also recently brought forward the independent reviewing officer. He may have an interesting role in this area. I think that his chief function is implementation of the care plan. Therefore there is room for both the advocate and the independent reviewing officer.
	In conclusion, it is just so vital to get these early decisions right. I know that the noble Baroness will listen carefully to what has been said and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to the noble Earl for speaking to both his amendments in the group; I think that my comments will make more sense in that context. I know how strongly he feels about the need to support emotional literacy and emotional well-being, and I know how disappointed he will be to hear me say that, as he anticipated, we feel these amendments are unnecessary. We are not saying that they are in any way unimportant. Indeed, the Social Exclusion Unit report has established a very close connection between children's emotional well-being, health and educational achievement.
	Section 22(3)(a) of the Children Act states:
	"It shall be the duty of a local authority looking after any child . . . to safeguard and promote his welfare";
	and that includes his or her emotional well-being. How could it be otherwise? One of the best measures we have in addressing the trauma and range of problems those children face is our ability to see how they can flourish and grow emotionally and how they relate not only to adults but to people of their own age.
	The requirement is reinforced by Section 27(1) of the same Act, which entitles the local authority to ask another body such as the PCT or the strategic health authority to help with that function. That is where the mental health facilities come into play. I know how concerned the noble Earl is that we should have the strongest and most accessible child and adolescent mental health services possible.
	As the noble Earl has raised the issue, I say to him that front-line services are what make the real difference in the quality and effect of the services provided. This is not about legislation but about proper training, resources going to key workers and care workers and enabling those workers to recognise and take steps towards supporting emotional resilience in children.
	I hope that the noble Earl will agree with some of the steps we have taken—such as issuing guidance requiring local authorities to set up arrangements to ensure the assessment of the health needs of every looked-after child on entering care and the regular review of health plans that include their mental health needs. The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills are working in partnership with the National Children's Bureau. All of that is helping to build up the purpose and collective knowledge of emotional well-being. I hope that that will reassure the noble Earl.
	Turning to the noble Earl's other amendments, I know how concerned he is about the voice of the child and the need to provide appropriate advocacy. In our debates on the Adoption and Children Act 2002 we spent many hours discussing advocacy arrangements. Perhaps I may explain how we have strengthened the current provision. Section 22 of the Children Act 1989 established the original duty. However, we have always known that, on other occasions, other advocacy arrangements are necessary. Therefore, as the noble Earl knows, we changed that duty in Section 26A of the 2002 Act.
	As the provision came into effect only in April it is too early to say how it is working. However, it places on local authorities the duty to make arrangements to provide assistance, including representation of children in need who are intending to make representations. I know that linking that to complaints is not, as the noble Earl would see it, sufficient. We have also issued guidance setting out what is expected in terms of those services and the roles of the professionals. We have worked with the Who Cares Trust to make that guidance very much more available.
	The noble Earl has already mentioned the independent reviewing officer. The role of the IRO is not retrospective; it is very much a formative role in relation to care planning. The IRO must recognise the importance of involving a looked-after child in the planning and review process. Again, that is set out in the guidance. Perhaps I may write to the noble Earl to explain how we see that role evolving.
	One problem relating to the noble Earl's amendment is that it would require every decision involving a child to be accompanied by advocacy arrangements. I cannot believe that that is what the noble Earl intended because it would be neither practical nor helpful. I know he agrees that one issue raised by those young people is that too many people are involved with them. They want consistency, sustained relationships and people whom they can trust and rely on to be there. That is why it is extremely important that, rather than having recourse to advocacy, the young people should have recourse to the continuity of a proper key worker who takes a keen interest in them.
	I understand why the noble Earl tabled the amendments. I do not think that he will be satisfied with my explanation, but I hope that he will have some sympathy with what the Government are trying to do in response.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her very helpful and full response to the concerns raised in both my amendments. I shall read very carefully what she said. I also thank her for the helpful conversation that we had this morning. The more information that we have in this area, the more useful work we can do together in taking the matter forward. I acknowledge the many important steps that the Government have taken to ensure that the voice of the child is heard and that children in care are better looked after. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Iraq: Adjustments to UK Forces

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"As I have made repeatedly clear to the House, we keep the number and nature of United Kingdom forces in Multinational Division (South East) (MND(SE)) under constant review. Since MND(SE) was established in the summer of 2003, we have made a series of adjustments in the light of the situation on the ground and the advice of the General Officer Commanding. The most significant of these have included: the multi-nationalisation of the headquarters, which was originally based on a UK division; the deployment of two additional surge battalions, which I announced in September; and the deployment of a replacement for these battalions, plus a small number of Royal Military Police, primarily to provide a surge capability to assist with the training and development of Iraqi security forces in MND(SE), which I announced to the House on 28 October and 15 December respectively.
	"As a result of the latest advice from the General Officer Commanding, we plan a number of further such adjustments within MND(SE). The two surge battalions—currently the 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the 1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers—have made excellent progress in their work with local Iraqi forces, who are increasingly taking on responsibility for basic security functions in MND(SE). We therefore judge that it is unlikely that we shall need two further battalions to perform this role this summer, but we will keep this under review.
	"As a prudent precaution, we are reducing the 'notice to move' of 40 Commando The Royal Marines in order to keep open the option of deploying it to continue this work when the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and Royal Highland Fusiliers reach the end of their tours. In the mean time, 40 Commando will continue with its current activities.
	"In January 2004, we deployed two additional platoons of Royal Military Police from 110 Provost Company to assist in the provision of specialised training for the Iraqi police service. They will come to the end of their tour in June, having performed an invaluable role. We judge that this work should continue, and therefore plan to deploy two platoons of the RMP from 160 Provost Company to replace those returning next month.
	"In addition, the House will be aware that the security situation in Iraq remains difficult, even in parts of MND(SE), which on the whole continues to be one of the more stable areas of Iraq. In particular, there is a continuing threat from violent groups in the area around Al Amarah in the province of Maysan. Although UK forces and Iraqi security forces have taken, and continue to take, robust and appropriate action to deal with this threat, the General Officer Commanding, Major General Stewart, judges that, with the planned withdrawal of 1 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, a light infantry battalion, at the end of its six-month tour in July, it would be advisable to take the opportunity to deploy a Warrior-trained infantry battalion. This will provide General Stewart with a well protected and mobile reserve, which will give him greater operational flexibility. We therefore plan to deploy the 1st Battalion The Black Watch with a small number of logistic enablers. This will involve up to 600 personnel—a net increase of about 200 when the withdrawal of 1 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders is taken into account.
	"Finally, in view of the nature of the threat posed by violent groups around Al Amarah in particular, which has involved mortar and rocket attacks on UK bases, General Stewart has requested, and I have agreed to, the deployment of 69 Squadron from 36 Regiment Royal Engineers—some 170 personnel—for a period of around three months. These engineers will carry out force protection work, including the construction of additional physical defences in British bases, to reduce the threat posed by the kind of attacks we have seen in recent weeks.
	"I would emphasise to the House that these are prudent adjustments, at the request of the General Officer Commanding, to UK forces in MND(SE). It remains the case that we, with our coalition partners, are considering the levels and dispositions of forces required in Iraq in the months ahead to support the sovereign interim Government of Iraq through the process leading to the election of a transitional assembly and government early in 2005. If we judge that further changes to the UK military contribution in Iraq would be appropriate to support this process, we will of course inform the House at the earliest opportunity. At present, however, no such decision has been made".
	My Lords, that completes the Statement.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. It has certainly been a long time in coming. The Statement focuses on operational, rather than strategic, matters. In the light of that, can the Minister rule out any announcement next week, when Parliament is not sitting, of a substantial movement of British troops in Iraq or further troop deployments there?
	We will support the extra deployment mentioned in the Statement as commanders on the ground clearly are arguing that there are compelling reasons for doing so. The Statement is right to highlight the excellent progress that the two surge battalions—the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Royal Highland Fusiliers—have made in their work with local Iraqi forces. We on these Benches congratulate them on that.
	We very much support their replacement, at the end of their six-month tour, by a Warrior-trained infantry battalion, and we support reducing the notice to move of 40 Commando The Royal Marines as standby. The need for a Warrior battalion was demonstrated only a fortnight ago when a convoy of Argylls in Land Rovers was ambushed by Iraqi militia.
	Can the Minister confirm that, in the light of it being "advisable" to replace the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders with a Warrior-trained battalion, the Argylls, who are vulnerable as a light infantry battalion, will, in the mean time, be adequately protected until the end of their tour?
	We support the deployment of the Royal Engineers squadron in the light of the mortar and rocket attacks around Al Amarah. It is unfortunate that the Black Watch is being deployed so soon after its previous tour in Iraq. That is a perfect example of the overstretch facing our troops at the moment.
	It is clear that the state of our troops post-30 June remains ambiguous. That is most unsatisfactory. Parliament is entitled to know as soon as possible what will be their status.
	Finally, the Statement points out that the security situation in Iraq remains difficult. I therefore congratulate our Armed Forces, on operational deployment there, on their exceptional skill and courage under these demanding and dangerous circumstances.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Many questions have already been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. However, I should like to ask the Minister about the area of operation in which the troops will undertake their activities. The Statement refers to them being confined to the MND(SE) and we hope that that would be the case. Obviously, the numbers are very small in overall terms. Therefore, their commitment towards replacing troops from other countries which have left would not really be fulfilled.
	Can the Minister say whether negotiations have been undertaken with the Americans to consider replacing Spanish forces who are leaving or have left Iraq? That would significantly change the area in which British forces have operated before and, I believe, would change the strategic nature of the operation that we were undertaking. If we were to move into north Iraq, that would need not just a Statement in this House and in another place but perhaps even a vote in order that the Government's intentions are carried out with the support of Parliament because it would change the whole nature of the operation in Iraq.
	The Statement refers to small movements of personnel. Obviously, many of those requests came from the commander on the ground. We very much support the movement of the Royal Engineers to make our troops safer. With the 30 June deadline soon to be reached, much of the work they are undertaking will not be seen by the local population as embedding our troops but as a mere short-term response to the threat.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that it is a welcome sign that the Warrior armoured infantry battalion will be moved because of the implications for the safety of our troops. However, having trained on Warrior, I feel somewhat for the soldiers who will be operating in it. It is a fabulous vehicle but in the hot summer ahead it will be rather uncomfortable.
	I have a couple of questions on overstretch. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is one that I wished to ask, but I have a specific question about the Black Watch. The threat of amalgamation or disbandment seems to overhang the regiment at present. Can the Minister say whether the fears of the troops of that regiment in that regard are being dealt with appropriately? It seems unfortunate that they have been sent back to Iraq to deal with the situation while the state of the regiment is in doubt.
	Will these troop deployments need further call up of TA personnel? Are the Government considering any drop-off in the response of TA personnel? As this operation drags ever further into the future, it seems possible that the publication of adverse experiences of TA personnel who serve in Iraq—many go back and find that their jobs are no longer open—will mean that they may feel differently about doing so.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the reception that they have given to the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, rightly identified, it is a Statement about operational requirements rather than one about a shift in any of the strategic objectives. The noble Lord and others will have noted that there is a net increase of troops on the ground of about 370.
	The noble Lord asked whether I could guarantee that no Statements will be made next week. I can give the guarantee that there is nothing planned in that regard for next week. Care has been taken to ensure that this Statement was made today before the Recess. Had there been anything further to say, it would have been said. However, the noble Lord will know that there is always the possibility of the completely unexpected. I very much doubt that that will be the case, but I cannot give absolute cast iron guarantees. All I know is that there is nothing planned at present.
	This is, indeed, at the request of the officer commanding. I thank both noble Lords for the generous way in which they acknowledged that and, indeed, for the generous way in which they supported the Warrior deployment to MND(SE).
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the protection of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. We do the utmost to protect our troops on the ground. One of the first duties of any government when deploying troops is to ensure that those troops are deployed with as much safety as can possibly be guaranteed given that often they are entering a dangerous situation. Again, there are no cast-iron guarantees about personal safety but it is our duty to do what we can to ensure that.
	Both the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the Black Watch and both noble Lords said that they were concerned about overstretch. The tour length will be six months and plans have been made to backfill where necessary. I understand that the King's Regiment will now backfill for the Black Watch as the training regiment at the Land Warfare Centre at Warminster. The Black Watch has been in training at that centre.
	I fully understand the concerns about overstretch. However, the Black Watch is being deployed because it has been identified by the military commanders as having the skills necessary and has been identified by the General commanding MND(SE) as the regiment that he wishes to deploy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, indicated that he thought there was ambiguity in the way that the troops would be used. I would refer him to what his right honourable friend Mr Michael Howard said in another place only yesterday:
	"The Prime Minister said yesterday that while operational control of our troops in Iraq after 30 June must remain with British commanders, final political control over their deployment will be a matter for the Iraqi Government. I make it clear that I support that view, which is entirely consistent with the need for the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June to be real and not cosmetic".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/5/04; col. 1558.]
	That is what Mr Howard understood the Prime Minister to have said. That being the case, I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that I do not really follow why there is ambiguity over this because his own leader in another place seems to be clear.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I cannot remember using the word "ambiguity".

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I wrote it down while he was speaking. Perhaps I was wrong and I apologise to him if that was the case. Let us not worry about whether the noble Lord used that word. I want to be clear that both the party opposite and the Government's party understand what the position will be and that has been acknowledged by the noble Lord's leader in another place.
	It is true that the United Nations Security Council resolution under discussion will deal with the fine detail of how these relationships work after 30 June. Again, we have made that clear. That matter is under discussion at present. In addition to the UNSCR, there is also planned an exchange of letters about how this relationship will work between the incoming interim Iraqi Government and the coalition as it is now, the former coalition as it will be.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the area of operation. Yes, indeed, the 370 extra troops will operate in MND(SE). The noble Lord asked about whether there were any negotiations with the United States about filling in for the Spanish troops when they depart. I think that the Statement from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear that those sorts of discussions happen all the time. There is a constant interchange of discussion about what is suitable to be deployed on the ground. Those conversations happen between coalition partners—and there are now a number of coalition partners—and in the Ministry of Defence between its civilian and military advisers, and thereafter of course around the whole of Whitehall. So those discussions continue.
	The noble Lord was quite right about a decision to move more of our deployment out of MND (SE). It is not all constrained in MND (SE), there are military personnel, for example, in Baghdad. But, if we were to move any major forces, that would be a more strategic decision. Would it need a vote? No, it would not need a vote. As the noble Lord knows, constitutionally, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did not need a vote in the first place to engage in military action in Iraq. He chose to have one, but there is not a need to have a vote. I would think that one would be very unlikely.
	I hope that that has dealt with all the questions raised. As I understand it, there are no implications for the Territorials in the Statement. There are Territorials on the ground, but their position will stay as it is at present.
	I believe that my right honourable friend has a rather good record of coming to another place to make such reports and, if there is more to report, I am sure he will continue to do so.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister announced that these are adjustments to the forces. Is she aware that the matters contained within the Statement—not least the announcement of the deployment of Royal Engineers and a Warrior regiment to provide extra protection for our troops—is the clearest confirmation that this House could have of the dangers faced by our forces? The decision to require the Black Watch—back for less than a year from its excellent work on Operation TELIC—to go again to Iraq is a further indication of the pressures and the stretch that our forces face.
	The Minister took some trouble over her answer and we respect the fact that the Government wanted to give this Statement before the House rose. However, in her answer that matters are kept under review there seemed to be an implication that we may well have a further Statement when the House returns. Other matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, which are as yet unresolved, may require a further Statement. Will she confirm whether that is an accurate estimate?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry if the way I answered the question left a big question mark in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord King, that I was anticipating a further Statement after the Recess. That was not in my mind.
	It is important to answer a question as accurately as one may. When the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked me whether I could guarantee that there would be no further Statements next week, I am not able to give an absolute cast-iron guarantee for all the exigencies that may be possible, given the difficulties there are on the ground. What I am able to guarantee is that if there are further changes that need to be announced, they will be announced as quickly as possible. I think that my right honourable friend's Statement has made that very clear.
	The noble Lord is quite right that the 370 extra people on the ground are deployed for the purposes he described, as was made clear in the Statement. They are not an enormous addition to our forces. We have all read speculation about additions to the forces being far greater than those that my right honourable friend has announced today. They are there absolutely at the request of the General Officer Commanding.
	The noble Lord said that this is the clearest possible indication of the danger that our troops face. That may be his interpretation. I would say that this sensible precaution is being taken at the clear request of the officer commanding, who I have met, and who I am sure the noble Lord has also met. He is an extremely sensible man who is making the right precautionary deployments of troops. He has asked us to ensure that we do everything we can to guarantee, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said, that we give our troops maximum protection.
	Let us be clear: we all know that the period between now and the handover of power on 30 June will be very difficult. Different groups are jockeying for position in Iraq because they want to be in the best possible position on 1 July. That is what is happening, whatever groups we are talking about, and that leads to a particularly potent cocktail of difficulty.
	The Statement makes clear that on the whole MND (SE) has been relatively peaceful. On the whole that is so. That is what my right honourable friend's Statement makes clear and that was certainly the impression I had when I spoke to the General Officer Commanding when I was last in Basra.
	However, things have changed in recent weeks, although I am bound to say that violent incidents have recently levelled off from their really high point a little while ago.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the Minister has explained the position very carefully, clearly and fairly. Given the fact that it is a rapidly moving and very difficult situation, will she give an undertaking that should there be a need during the Recess for a significant redeployment of British troops, either numerically or geographically, Parliament will be recalled?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is a very fair question. The noble Lord will know that it is not in my gift to give that sort of guarantee. However, I can say to the noble Lord that I should be very surprised were Parliament not to be recalled if there were such an eventuality.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the whole House will recognise the skill and courage of our Armed Forces in Iraq and the need for their effective deployment. As a former gunner officer in the Suez war, I can well remember the problems my fellow officers and I had in maintaining morale in a politically deeply divided country.
	Two weeks ago on 12 May, when we renewed the military discipline law, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, asking in advance some questions about human rights abuse, accountability and such matters. He was kind enough to attempt to answer the questions late in the evening in that debate. I would not expect the Minister to answer my question fully today, but if she looks at that debate, she will find that the luckless Minister was not really able to answer the questions properly, even though he was given written notice.
	The noble Baroness has rightly told us—as she always is astute to do—that she seeks to answer questions accurately and fairly. I am sure she does. But the noble Lord, Lord Bach, undertook to write, setting out precisely the position of Iraqi victims of any abuse under British law. He was not able to answer at the time, and I fully recognise that.
	Two weeks have passed and we have not been given an answer. I have put down lots of Questions for Written Answer, but surely it is in the interests of the morale of our troops and restoring public confidence—in this country and Iraq—in the political situation, that the Ministry of Defence and the Government as a whole, should be able to give that reassurance. The troops will know where they are and we can remove some of the unfair stain on the reputation of our forces caused by gross abuses by our coalition partners in Iraq. Will the Minister look at the debate and see what she can do to ensure that a coherent and full answer is given to reassure the public?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the skill and courage of our Armed Forces is very much to be admired and, of course, that it is important to maintain morale. I might not have the same view as the noble Lord on how maintaining morale is best achieved, but he is entitled to his opinions and I am certainly entitled to mine.
	I shall certainly ensure that my noble friend Lord Bach is aware of what the noble Lord has said today. My noble friend would be answering the questions today were he not overseas because of his official duties.
	I would say this: the Armed Forces are fully aware of their obligations under international law. They are given thorough mandatory training courses, which include specific guidance on the handling of prisoners of war. All personnel have to attend refresher training every year on that issue. Before going to Iraq, all personnel are briefed on the rules of engagement and the procedures for dealing with prisoners of war or other detainees. Each combat unit is required to have eight senior non-commissioned officers trained in the handling of prisoners of war. Units responsible for the routine handling of detainees conduct further specialist training.
	I hope that that has set the context. I realise that it will not answer the specific and, I am sure, very, very clever legal questions that the noble Lord has put to my noble friend, but I wanted to make that absolutely clear. I am glad that the noble Lord made the point that much of what has been said about our Armed Forces was false, and certainly the disgraceful pictures that appeared in the newspapers were fakes. Those who put that stain on our Armed Forces bear some responsibility for doing what they can to remove it.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my regiment, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, is pretty good at looking after itself, although of course it welcomes all the support it can get? I, too, was disappointed that the Minister did not mention the very successful little action that took place with the Argyll regiment not so long ago, and its handling and defeat of the militia.
	I have the same concerns that other noble Lords have expressed regarding the Black Watch. It is a great regiment, and any sensible general would like to have it with him in any operational concern. But I am amazed that of the 40 battalions of infantry—we never quite know how they are concentrated and working—no other regiment is ready to take the Warrior role. I see that as definite overstretch. Although the noble Baroness has done her best to put that out of our minds, I am afraid that it will be seen very much as overstretch.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are very good at looking after themselves. I deliver the Statement to your Lordships' House as my right honourable friend has articulated it in another place, but let me acknowledge now what he said about the way in which his old regiment handled the issues over the militia: I put on record the admiration of the whole House in that respect.
	The Black Watch is a very fine regiment. There was a time when I knew the Black Watch quite well—of course not the entire regiment—as I had family connections with it. I know how excellent the regiment is. The noble Viscount says that the decision was evidence of overstretch. It is quite right that the Black Watch was deployed last spring in Iraq; it has since been in Warminster doing other work. Any decisions on redeployment are taken with the Chiefs of the Defence Staff on the advice of the General Officer Commanding on the ground on his needs. I am sure that they will have chosen the best regiment for the need identified.

Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend will know that I was among many who strongly opposed the war in Iraq in the first place. Now, more than a year later, the coalition forces are becoming increasingly unpopular and increasingly under guerrilla attack, even though most Iraqis were delighted to see the back of Saddam's cruel regime. Surely to put more troops in now is to continue digging when we are in a hole. It is not likely to be popular with the Iraqis, and the resistance movement is likely to gain more recruits. What is surely needed, together with the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July, is a rapid handover of responsibility for security to the retrained Iraqi police and army. Fallujah has been quiet since an Iraqi armed force took over the control of security there. That is an object lesson for the whole country.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that we stop digging. He must take on board the fact that this is not a strategic decision to deploy more troops; it is an operational decision to respond to a need identified by the General Officer Commanding in Iraq. He has said that he needs more troops for quite specific purposes, which I have been able to identify in the Statement to your Lordships' House. Were we not to fulfil that, I would venture to suggest that many noble Lords would be outraged that we set to one side the recommendation from the General Officer Commanding. So I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend on that.
	Furthermore, I do not agree that the addition of 370 troops will enrage Iraqis on the ground who do not want to see the troops there in the first place. Frankly, I do not think that the Iraqis who are unhappy to see the troops will think that 370 more or less will incite them to any greater acts of violence.
	What is true is that occupying forces in any country are bound to attract a certain amount of criticism. Would not we all be appalled to live in a country where there was an occupying force? We can all understand that. That is why the handover of sovereignty on 30 June is so important; it is why Her Majesty's Government have worked so diligently and hard with our coalition partners and, importantly, with the United Nations to ensure that this handover is a real handover of sovereignty. We are doing that in negotiating the UNSCR and through the exchanges of letters. I hope that my noble friend will acknowledge that we are working very hard on that objective.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, I would like to ask a relatively narrow but, I think, significant question. The Minister has acknowledged that there could be a "cocktail of difficulties"—I believe I quote her correctly—as one moved to the situation where an Iraqi government would emerge. Does she feel that the rules of engagement of our forces are so drawn that they could cope with that potential situation?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I believe so. I also believe that the rules of engagement are not designated entirely by politicians. As the noble Lord will know from his previous incarnation, politicians in the Ministry of Defence are bound to take an interest in this; and there are the legal implications of rules of engagement; but rules of engagement are always put into place under military guidance on what is needed.

European Parliamentary and Local Elections

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made earlier in the other place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Christopher Leslie. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to update the House on progress in the administration of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections. A number of honourable and right honourable Members raised points of order yesterday in response to media reports, and so I thought it would assist the House to give a short report on the picture so far.
	"No unexpected issues have been reported to my department in those parts of the country where voting will occur through conventional means.
	"In respect of the all-postal voting pilots occurring in the north-east of England, the north-west, the East Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside, at this early stage, regional returning officers are reporting good progress in general. They all remain on track for issuing ballot packs by next Tuesday, 1 June, in accordance with the regulations. There are 12 printing contractors involved in these pilot all-postal trials.
	"Technical issues with data processing and printing machines operated by associates of one contractor, Opt2Vote, have meant that some local returning officers did not receive their printed ballot packs to the schedule originally anticipated. No doubt this delay has caused some of the concerns that have already been voiced, particularly in the East Midlands, where Opt2Vote has the largest contract. Contingency arrangements appear to be working well. I am assured that spare printing capacity is being employed across the country, and that the printing issue is now in hand. Revised printing schedules from Opt2Vote indicate that it will be able to meet the 1 June issuing deadline for all local authorities.
	"Separately, the managing director of one other contractor was taken ill, which caused a delay with printing for two local authorities. I am pleased to report that the returning officers for those areas have been able to reallocate ballot pack printing in those cases, and I should like to put on record my thanks to those other contractors and local authority in-house printing teams for employing their spare capacity.
	"Overall, there are 127 local authorities taking part in the all-postal pilots, and there are 49 local authorities still in the process of printing. This is within the margins of the targets set, and I am confident that the deadlines to hand over packs to the Royal Mail will be met. Of the 40 authorities in the East Midlands, 13 have seen their ballot packs delivered to the Royal Mail already. In the north-west, 28 of their 43 authorities' packs have been delivered to the Royal Mail. In the north-east, 19 out of 23 have been passed to the Royal Mail and other deliverers. In Yorkshire and Humberside, 18 out of 21 have gone to the Royal Mail.
	"I am pleased to report to the House that the Royal Mail is responding efficiently and effectively to the challenge of all-postal voting. We have established excellent relations with the management teams in each region and at a national level. I met yesterday with Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Royal Mail, and he confirmed plans to ensure delivery as quickly as possible. Many electors have already received their voting papers, and some have even been returned to returning officers. I would encourage electors with postal votes to make their choice, complete their ballot papers, and post them by 8 June to ensure they are safely delivered to returning officers in plenty of time for the 10 June close of poll.
	"All-postal voting has been piloted over several years now, gradually scaling up from local pilots to this year's four regions. The initiative is being tested to see the impact on turnout levels, and the signs are that millions more electors will participate as a result of receiving their ballot papers at home. This is surely to be welcomed, as our democracy rests on achieving the most widespread involvement of as many people as possible.
	"I hope the House finds this update useful and that it will pay tribute to the sterling efforts being put in by professional and dedicated returning officers throughout the country. They are rising to the challenge of making voting easier and more convenient for the public at large, and I am confident that the elections will run smoothly".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in the other place; a Statement of breathtaking complacency. It has become apparent, despite the unwarranted optimism of Ministers, that in the past 24 hours serious delays have occurred and are occurring in the despatch of ballot papers in the four regions where all-postal voting for the forthcoming local and European elections will occur.
	I can report that last night Bradford council confirmed that a quarter of a million ballot papers for the June elections were unusable owing to printing mistakes. We understand that today, 300,000 ballot papers—presumably because some of those papers were all right—were having to be reprinted, and at lunchtime today only 15,000 of those had been enveloped ready for delivery to the post office. To add to the general air of inefficiency, a number of ballot papers destined for Bradford have ended up in Leeds.
	It does not take a genius to work out that to have the 300,000 prepared and delivered within the legal timeframe required by regulations on 1 June will require a heroic endeavour, given that prior to that day there is a Sunday and a bank holiday. Indeed, it may not have escaped the Government's notice that people tend to go away during this period, and as a result of these disasters may consequently be disfranchised. Their only recourse may be to seek duplicate forms from their town hall, an action they may not bother to take, thus reducing the rationale of all-postal voting; an increase in numbers and turn-out. Who will be monitoring whether electors receive their ballot papers within the legal timeframe?
	We also understand that in the entire East Midlands, voting papers have not even been placed into the hands of election officers because of delays. This picture is repeated across the country, with difficulties being reported in Leeds, Scarborough, Sheffield, Warrington, Chester, Blackburn, Preston and Gateshead—not quite what the tone of the Statement implied. An emergency meeting of the north-west returning officers had to be held last night because of their concerns over printing delays jeopardising the whole process. With this evidence, it is hard to believe the Prime Minister's words that,
	"returning officers are on target to post ballot packs by the deadline on 1 June".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/5/04; col. 1566.]
	I cannot stress enough the seriousness of this issue. The possible disruption of the electoral process is a matter of the most grave concern, and it is one on which we spent considerable time during the process of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. I am sure that the Minister will remember that well. Yet throughout the passage of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, we received nothing but assurances and platitudes that everything would be fine. The Government asserted that there would be no problems in extending the pilot areas to four regions and there was no cause for concern or worry. How wrong the Government were to believe their own statements. How right we were to push the Government as we did on this contentious issue. How wrong it now appears the Government were to ignore the impartial, independent advice of the Electoral Commission on extending the pilot regions. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves what was said. The Electoral Commission chairman, Sam Younger, wrote personally to the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 March while the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill was still in process in this House:
	"Preparation time is already limited and further delays will add uncertainties and risks".
	Yet the Minister sitting opposite assured us in this House on 16 March in respect of the Government's discussion with the Electoral Commission on extending the number of regions,
	"The Government have undertaken such investigations with care, patience and thoroughness, and we are now clear that it is perfectly safe to undertake pilot elections in two further regions".—[Official Report, 16/4/04; col. 140.]
	The Government had identified that extending the pilots would have an impact on the timeframe. The draft Pilots Order and the policy paper published by the Minister on 21 April clearly states that,
	"it is recognised that the greater procurement and printing requirements for an all-postal election on this scale will require additional time to prepare for and print the ballot paper packages".
	Perhaps it is now time for a little honesty. How did the Government believe that a Bill introduced into this House with major changes as late as January of this year could complete its passage in appropriate timescales with the administration that was required to implement the proposals?
	Why were the Government so confident that they could ignore the independent advice of the Electoral Commission against extending the pilots from the two recommended regions to four? Who will pay the costs for the delays? What is the legal position regarding the regulations that state that ballot papers must be received by the deadline of 1 June? If that deadline is breached by any ballot papers not being received, will Parliament have to be recalled to pass another order to enable those ballot papers to be delivered? How could that possibly be done in time for postal voting to take place on 8 June?
	We appreciate that returning officers and other public servants are doing their level best to carry out the Government's absurd plans. It is not their fault that they have been working against impossible timescales and on such an extensive area. The Government must stop being so complacent, and now do everything that they can to restore trust and integrity in our electoral system, not least so that people actually have an opportunity to vote.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, so far as I am aware, this is the first occasion on which Ministers in both Houses have had to come to present an account of how elections are proceeding; supposedly satisfactorily. You wonder why it would be necessary for Minister to come to both Houses if the elections were running as smoothly as suggested by the Statement. A different account of the elections appears in tonight's Newcastle Journal, the lead story of which is "The Big Postal Voting Farce". It is bad enough that there are different regions with different voting systems in the same election, but it is now clear that hundreds of thousands of ballot papers that should have been delivered by Saturday will not now be printed until next week, and that this is a widespread problem perhaps in all four of the pilot all-postal voting regions. It means that, at best, some voters in those regions chosen by the Government for all-postal-vote elections will have two weeks in which to vote, and others will—they hope—have about one week in which to return their ballot papers.
	There may be even worse problems with the elections. Already, it is clear that some voters in Sheffield have received ballot papers for the local elections for wards in which they do not reside and are not entitled to vote. There is the same situation in Stockport, and I know of at least one case of the wrong declaration of identity—an identity belonging to someone else—being delivered to a voter. There could be huge numbers of legal challenges to individual ward results if the pattern proves more widespread.
	The Electoral Commission warned very clearly about the problems that there would be if the Government insisted on pursuing the all-postal pilots on such a large scale. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to the commission's letter of 4 March, which was most eloquent in warning the Government against up-scaling the pilots to such a large degree, because it invited such problems.
	This House stood against what I believe to be gerrymandering in the elections, and I argued here on 30 March that those who try to change the rules, fail to achieve consensus, ignore independent advice and refuse to compromise must accept responsibility for what they do. The Government should now come clean about exactly who is responsible for gerrymandering and a potential cock-up in the elections of massive proportions.
	We have got here because the Deputy Prime Minister feared simply that the Labour Party could not get its traditional supporters to turn out at polling stations this year. Will the Government be more minded in future to try to proceed with consensus and independent advice from the Electoral Commission before seeking to change voter regulations? What support will they give towards the considerable legal costs that some candidates may face if they lose their seats purely as a result of issues such as voters receiving the wrong ballot papers?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, we return to an issue on which we have spent substantial amounts of time in this House. Let me respond first to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I assure her that there is no complacency in the Government, the Royal Mail, regional returning officers or returning officers. There has been none from the beginning. All sides have recognised that it was a significant challenge and test to ensure that we conducted the elections well and properly. She asked who monitored what happened in a particular electoral area. The answer is the returning officer for that area. He will think about that, and will watch and put in place checks to ensure that the election is appropriately conducted.
	The position is as I set out in the Statement. We have no reason to think that the ballot papers will not be issued according to the legal requirement by 1 June. It is absolutely correct that the north-west returning officers have met under the leadership of the regional returning officer, Sir Howard Bernstein. I would have expected them to; that is exactly what an active and responsible regional returning officer would do. It would ensure that the relevant returning officers were together to monitor the situation and see what support was needed in any areas of difficulty.
	I was asked how the Government believed that it was possible to undertake the process in the time. We came to that conclusion because we worked throughout the passage of the Bill, in the closest possible liaison, with both regional returning officers and returning officers. We took their views and advice about what was practicable and what they believed that they could deliver. I pay tribute to the professionalism with which they have addressed the issue and continue to do so. We would have been foolish had we lightly moved on to a process that they did not believe that they had a good prospect of being able to deliver.
	Why were four regions chosen rather than three? I would weary the House if I repeated our previous debates. We felt that we could learn more from that process, and four regions were capable of carrying the pilot out.
	The noble Baroness asked about the legal position. I shall give it in brief. The regulations governing local government and European elections provide that a technical breach—something not done explicitly according to the letter—should not result in a successful electoral petition provided that no European or parliamentary election should be declared invalid by reason of an act or omission, if it appears to the tribunal having cognisance of the question that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law on elections and the act or omission did not affect its result.
	I shall try to put that more simply and clearly. If anyone who has a relevant interest in an area believes that there has been an electoral irregularity there, they are entitled to make a petition complaining of an undue election and questioning the result of the process. I was signalling that the courts are required, when looking at such a petition, not to strike out the election automatically simply because there has been one technical irregularity, but to look at the two tests that I quoted from the statute in that respect. Without me labouring the point, one can understand why that is for good reason.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the most salient point is that the ballot papers, under regulations, have to be received by 1 June. It seems very possible that they will not be. Is it still the situation as the law stands that that will be only a technical breach?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the regulations issued on, I think, 27 April state that the ballot papers have to be issued by the returning officer by 1 June. They have to be issued to the Royal Mail for delivery by it from that point onwards. I was trying to give the noble Baroness a fair and balanced explanation of the law. If in one area, for example, one ballot paper had not been issued by 1 June, that would not necessarily strike out the election, for reasons that are self-evident given the explanation of what the statute said.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised a number of questions and returned to some of our previous debates. From the information that we are getting from returning officers, I do not believe that there will be a cock-up, and I am certainly clear that there is no exercise in gerrymandering. He asked whether we take cognisance of the Electoral Commission's advice. We do so; we did so; we will do so in future. That does not mean to say that we follow it. It is advice; it is not a mandate. Parliament makes the decisions, not the Electoral Commission.
	The House is naturally interested to receive a report on such issues, given that there was some speculation and concern exhibited in the press. However, one should not rush prematurely into a celebration of a disaster on the issue, because returning officers and regional returning officers are working very strongly throughout the weekend—as are other people who have roles to play in the system—to ensure that the elections are true, fair and can be carried out effectively under the all-postal system, as we have previously discussed.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question about who will be responsible for paying for any disturbances caused, particularly the reprinting of nearly a quarter of a million ballot papers?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Baroness would recognise, the answer to that question would depend on who was responsible for any failure or breach of contract. I am not privy—nor should I be—to the details of the contractual arrangements between the returning officer and the printers, but if a printer failed to meet a contractual responsibility to which it had signed up, clearly the local authority's returning officer would look to it for remedy.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am sure that no one in the House doubts, as the Minister said, that the returning officers, the Post Office and Royal Mail will do their best to try to pull the Government out of the mess that they have created, because we must have free and fair elections. However, the very words he used—that the elections would be a challenge and a test—and the fact that the best that the returning officers could say was that there were good prospects that they would be able to deliver the election in proper order, indicate the difficulties created.
	The Government have decided to take the risk and embark on something manifestly inaptly called pilots; half the country will vote in the full postal ballots. From what the Minister said to my noble friend Lady Hanham, I understand that the elections will go forward no matter how inadequate are the arrangements or how short the shortage may be of ballot papers for voters. It will then be for the courts to determine whether the election was invalid. Is that correct?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot genuinely think how the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, can draw the conclusion that he has just done from the Statement that I made and the answers that I gave. I said clearly to the House that, on the information that we have got from regional returning officers and returning officers, people are working actively, as one would expect senior managers to do, to address any issues of printing that occur in those ballots—essentially, we are talking about two printing firms having difficulties—to ensure that they deliver a successful election process.
	I seek to address this House with moderation rather than exaggeration. I am slightly disappointed that my words were turned back against me, in the way that the noble Lord did, by not claiming 100 per cent certainty when it would be foolish to do so. The position is as I have said. We have obviously inspected the situation carefully. Regional returning officers and returning officers could not be more mindful of their responsibilities. They are working hard to deliver the position. The Royal Mail is equally committed.
	I would also point out to the noble Lord that this is not a frivolous experiment. It is because we are concerned in this House and another place at the appalling reduction in turnout in our elections. That is why we believe that it is important to do something to try to increase turnout by testing effective new means of doing so. As I have said to this House previously, if, as we expect, these elections are well conducted, we expect 2 million more people to vote in these four regions than would otherwise have done so.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, apart from an increase in turnout, what other effect do the Government anticipate that postal balloting will have? Are they of the view that the outcome of the election will be the same as it would have been? Can he further say whether there is any evidence that the previous system ever failed?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether the postal process will lead to a difference in outcome. It is a good question to which we turned many times during the debates on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. All I can say to him is that this is an issue which excites election agents up and down the land. Some view it one way; some view it another. I know of no academic research that has pointed to a clear conclusion either way on the issue. Therefore, that is the best and most truthful answer that I can give him in that respect.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord a question which he totally ignored. Notwithstanding that a great effort is being made by the printers, the returning officers and the Royal Mail, if it becomes apparent that very significant numbers of ballot papers fail to arrive by the date required under the regulations, will it be the position of the Government and the legal position that the election goes ahead with manifest inadequacies and then it is a matter for the courts to determine whether the election is valid or invalid? Is that the position?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I hoped that the answer to the question was clear from what I said previously. It is a hypothetical question that is posited on the probability or the possibility that there could be a substantial disaster in these elections. I repeat what I said to the House: we do not believe that that will be the situation. Therefore, I shall not answer hypothetical questions based on what if x or y disaster were to take place.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, in responding to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, my noble friend the Minister indicated that he was not fully aware of the terms of the contracts between the printers and returning officers and, indeed, that it may not be the Minister's concern or responsibility to have that knowledge. I wonder whether I got that right. Would it be the case that the Government are not interested in ensuring adequate incentives on the printers to do what they are supposed to do, including penalty clauses of some kind if they fail to come up with the matter of urgent performance of their work?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have no doubt that all the parties in this system are very vigorously incentivised to work to make it a success. I am sure that that goes to the contractors, the local authority printers, the Royal Mail, the returning officers and the very many local authority officials who are working on those issues. The noble Lord is correct. It is not the responsibility of Ministers to be involved in contractual arrangements. Returning officers are the officials who carry the legal responsibility for elections. It is their responsibility to undertake those issues. I have great confidence in their capacity to do so.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I wish to follow up a point made by my noble friend Lord King. There must have been a risk management assessment of the all-postal situation. Part of that risk management assessment, presumably, must have included what would happen if by any chance something disastrous happened, such as insufficient ballot papers being delivered or not being delivered on time. What was the outcome of such a risk management assessment; and, as my noble friend asked, what would be the legal outcome? I believe that that is not a hypothetical question.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. Of course, both at governmental level and at returning officer level, a risk assessment of issues such as this must be undertaken. We have just seen exactly what has happened in terms of one of those issues. One of the printers printed more slowly than it contracted to deliver. As a consequence, the relevant returning officers—in a sense with the knowledge of the Government because, clearly, we are in communication on such issues—arranged for other printers to undertake the printing.
	Therefore, that is what returning officers should do. It is the sort of message that if the Government's advice were asked for they would give. They would make sure that effective contingency plans were in place for the definables; that is, any significant risks that can be identified.

Children Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 43.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 243A:
	Page 27, line 41, at end insert "whether or not the child is in receipt of education at a school maintained by that authority"

Baroness Walmsley: Amendment No. 243A seeks to raise the cross-border issues relating to looked-after children. Clause 43 places a duty on the local authority to promote the child's educational achievement. But it is not clear whether that duty is limited to children looked after by the authority. What about other children in care that the authority has contact with, but who have been placed there by another authority?
	It is my understanding that where the child is resident—irrespective of where the parents live and which social services department is paying—determines who holds professional responsibility for the education of the child, as distinct from the financial responsibility. The admissions code recommends that looked-after children are given top priority in an admission's authority criteria.
	The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government what, under Clause 43, the implications are for looked-after children who live outside the LEA. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: I am very happy to clarify this point for noble Lords because there is clear evidence that young people placed in care away from home, and thus educated in an authority which is other than the "corporate parent", tend to do less well in school. Obviously we want to minimise that. That is why the duty we propose to introduce on local authorities under Clause 43—to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children—will apply to all the children whom the authority has a legal responsibility to look after, no matter where they happen to be educated. In other words, the duty will fall on the authority as corporate parent rather than as education authority.
	One of the fundamental purposes of Clause 43 is to make clear to local authorities that their responsibilities for ensuring that their looked-after children are well educated extend to those placed in schools outside as well as inside their borders. For example, the duty will mean that local authorities must ensure that they organise a suitable school placement at the same time as arranging a new care placement. Where the school is in another authority, the corporate parent authority will have to discuss the child's educational needs with the authority which maintains the school. All too often, as we know, that does not happen at the moment.
	Getting the legislative structure right is only part of the answer. The recent Social Exclusion Unit report reaffirmed the Government's commitment to working with local authorities to ensure that "out of authority placements" should be restricted to those cases where it is clearly in the child's best interests. Wherever possible, we want the child to remain in the local authority in which he has been brought up. That is why, under the Choice Protects programme, we are looking hard at how best to ensure that children's needs are always central to the process of placement planning and commissioning. We are about to consult on a new strategic framework which will lay down the key principles on which all authorities should base their placement planning and commissioning strategies.
	This is a key issue for the Government. I believe that my remarks have covered the points raised by the noble Baroness and I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that response. I am usually of the opinion that if you make something easier for people, they are more likely to do it. It strikes me that the Government have made the position more difficult by doing it this way around. It will not be easy for local authorities to reach out to schools outside their own areas to where they happen to have placed a child and ensure that that child's educational attainment is being well addressed. Would it not have been easier to ensure that the relevant education authority is responsible for the educational attainment of looked-after children placed in its schools? I wonder why the Government made the decision to arrange the responsibility that way around. What was the reason for it, because it seems more difficult like this? Can the Minister explain it?

Baroness Andrews: As I understand it, the notion of the "corporate parent" is the role that we want to develop, and that role is played by the local authority. This focuses on the corporate parent, ensuring that the local authority in that role addresses all the issues and responsibilities for the looked-after child. It involves delivering the range of support and care services that the young person needs. It is probably easier for the authority in the role of corporate parent to do that in relation to education outside its area than it would be for the education authority somehow to take on those wider responsibilities which, of course, it would not be able to do.
	I do not know whether this will be more difficult, but I hope that it will not. However, these arrangements need to be done better and this is the way to do it.

Baroness Walmsley: I certainly agree that it needs to be done better. However, I think I find myself in disagreement with the noble Baroness that this is the easiest way, although I appreciate that the Government are trying to develop the role of the corporate parent. We shall have to disagree on the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 43 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 243B and 243C not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?

Earl Howe: Clause 44 amends Section 83 of the Children Act 1989 and will enable local authorities and voluntary organisations to exchange information about an individual child.
	There are obvious concerns about a provision of this sort. I do not propose to have a re-run of our debates on Clause 8 but I should be grateful if the Minister could say something about how these arrangements are expected to work. For a start, who in local authorities and voluntary agencies will be able to access this type of information? Even basic information such as a child's name, age and address should not be made freely available and should be passed across only when there is a compelling need for that to happen. What confidentiality protocols will apply across the agencies and what legal standing will those protocols have? What sanctions will there be if the protocols are infringed?
	I have in mind a case that I have come across this week of a gross breach of confidentiality within a certain local authority. Given that, it worries me that this kind of information has a habit of leaking to where it should not be. We have to bear in mind the practical consequences of irresponsible or inappropriate disclosure. In some cases, such as in domestic violence, for example, being able to identify a particular child could put that child at risk. Readily accessible information identifying children living in refuges—I am told that around 23,000 children do so each year—makes the mothers of such children vulnerable to being traced and often attacked, or sometimes even killed by former partners who have been known to trace women through school records, court records, postcodes and the like.
	The provision raises a further issue. In so far as the information is needed by the Secretary of State for statistical analysis purposes, which is what is stated in the Explanatory Notes on the clause, I do not understand why that should require the details of named children to be made known to him.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me a chance to explain what we are seeking to do here and, I hope, to allay his fears as far as possible.
	Noble Lords may know that at present social services departments in local authorities provide education data on looked-after children as part of their returns to central government, while local education authorities provide data on individual children as part of theirs. That is ridiculous. It is a relic of the previous machinery of government arrangements before we took over responsibility for children's services generally at the department. We are seeking to remove this kind of duplication wherever we can.
	The Social Exclusion Unit report, A Better Education for Children in Care, which was referred to in our earlier discussions, included a specific commitment that the Government would,
	"harmonise the timetable and requirements for Government data collection, so that only one set of data is collected on the education of children in care".
	This clause honours that commitment and reduces the amount of data that local authorities have to provide to the centre, consequently lightening the burden on local authorities.
	The report also committed the Government to using data from the National Pupil Database in order to improve our understanding of outcomes, in particular for young people from ethnic minority backgrounds and children with disabilities, and to review the relevant policies so that we can target support better—where it is needed—and learn more about which practices make a real difference. As the Minister responsible for children with special educational needs, I can say to the noble Earl that a critical element of improving outcomes is to know what works well, to support it and to grow those practices wherever we can.
	The linkage of these sets of data will enable us to carry out more sophisticated analyses. As the noble Earl indicated, the type of information here is the young person's name, a unique pupil reference number and a postcode. That information will then be linked centrally by the Department for Education and Skills. We can then feed back to the authorities that supplied the information for the purposes of monitoring and reviewing performance. Moreover, noble Lords know that Clause 43 introduces a duty on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children. So we hope that this clause will ensure that local practitioners have all the relevant and accurate information they need to fulfil that duty, in the light of the guidance that we shall provide.
	There are strict disclosure procedures to ensure that published data does not identify individual children, and there are secure IT systems to ensure that only a limited number of staff can access the database. In a sense, we seek to merge information here. Statistics teams work under the National Statistics Code of Practice, a copy of which I do not have with me, but which I shall be happy to locate for the noble Earl. There will also be strict procedures governing release of any data, and security arrangements will always be in compliance with the Data Protection Act.
	I shall be happy to supply further information about any other issues surrounding the circumstances described by the noble Earl where information leaks out. However, this measure is primarily about not duplicating information and being able to support children better by understanding where there have been achievements and where there have not.

Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful and largely reassuring reply. I am pleased to note that this is, in part at least, a deregulatory measure applicable to local government.
	I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that if those who access and exchange this kind of information are first of all covered by the duty to safeguard the welfare of children and then, perhaps, also subject to CRB checks, that would at least provide some sense that access to information on individual children is being controlled in a codified way.
	What the Minister has said is of great interest. I shall consider her reply between now and Report stage.

Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Miscellaneous amendments for Parts 2 and 3]:
	[Amendment No. 244 not moved.]
	Clause 45 agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 244ZA:
	After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
	"ROLE OF TEACHER TRAINING AGENCY
	(1) The Education Act 1994 (c. 30) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1(4) (the teacher training agency), at end insert "and having regard to the functions to be performed by children's services authorities in their capacity as local education authorities by or under the Children Act 2004"."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The amendment seeks to probe the Government's intentions as to the role of the Teacher Training Agency and the provision of high-quality training for those involved in the delivery of frontline services for children and their families.
	At the launch of the Teacher Training Agency's corporate plan on 29 March this year, the Secretary of State said that the Teacher Training Agency will be taking on a larger remit to cover teaching assistants and support staff, and also that it will form part of a wider network that the Government are building to train and support all staff working with children, as outlined in Every Child Matters.
	Similarly, the Next Steps document states:
	"The Teacher Training Agency will build on its success in recruiting and training high-quality teachers by becoming the main agency for training and developing school support staff. This will build on the TTA's work in relation to Higher Level Teaching Assistants and strengthen the focus on delivery of occupational skills for other support staff roles. It opens up the prospect of the TTA taking on a more strategic role, closer to that of a sector skills council, for the whole school workforce. An enhanced Teacher Training Agency will be a key partner in the new strategic network representing all staff working with children and young people".
	The Next Steps document also states:
	"Local authority employers and other signatories to the National Agreement on School Workforce Reform will be closely involved in the development of these new arrangements".
	How far will these reforms go and will other groups be involved in these consultations?
	It is to be hoped that by extending the role of the TTA in this way the Government intend to enhance the number of qualified staff working in children's services across the board. Sadly, one of the features of the care services for children in the past has been the employment in care homes and other institutions related to children of ancillary helpers with few, if any, qualifications. The hope is that the development of the children service authorities will bring forward high-quality, fully funded and readily available continuing professional development for teachers, and opportunities for teachers to undergo continuing professional development with other professionals.
	Whether the TTA will be able to rise to such a challenge is something of a moot point. It will take more than simply paying an ad agency a hefty sum to come up with a name change. What is needed is the development of trust in partnerships across different agencies and the fostering of a shared understanding of each other's roles and priorities. Such matters are not easy, nor will they develop without a huge investment in professional training and support. We shall be interested to hear the Minister's views on how the Government envisage these developments moving forward. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I wish that we were having an hour-long debate on the way in which the Teacher Training Agency could develop, but I can tell from the faces of noble Lords that they would not wish to do so at this time. So I shall very briefly address the well made points of the noble Baroness about what we are seeking to do.
	As she indicated, this is about the Teacher Training Agency helping us to achieve greater integration in the delivery of services to children and young people. We have debated before the scaffold approach and seeking opportunities for people to develop their skills. We want the TTA to have regard not only to what is happening in the field of children's services but also to make a positive contribution to it.
	As the noble Baroness said, on 29 March my right honourable friend announced what he thought the new remit of the TTA might be—that is, to be responsible for the training and development of the whole school workforce. This will include the continuing professional development of teachers and the training of classroom support staff.
	We know the importance of these activities if the new children's services authorities are to be successful, so we are looking to the TTA to develop very close links with the directors of children's services and others in the field. The noble Baroness was particularly keen that I should indicate a partnership approach, which is absolutely critical, as is talking to others in the field, most notably the sector skills council for social care, children and young people. She is right to say that we need the TTA to be—and it is—in dialogue and discussion with a whole range of partners to ensure that they are working closely together.
	I think the TTA will rise to the challenge. Apart from its success in advertising—which has done wonders to recruit teachers and trainee teachers—we know that it has a good and solid record in the work that it does and I pay tribute to it for that. The TTA is very excited by the new challenge ahead, which fits very well with the development role it wants. It knows that it has a lot of work to do; it knows that it is very critical to engage with children's services, and it is in the middle of preparing to do so.
	I should make it clear that if because of the TTA's new remit it becomes desirable to make any changes to the 1994 Act, we would bring them forward to Parliament at a suitable time. We do not yet know whether that will be necessary.
	The spirit of the amendment commands our support, but it is not necessary and I do not believe the noble Baroness will press it in any event. It is important to acknowledge the enhanced role of the TTA and the noble Baroness's points about working in partnership are well taken and well made.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is a probing amendment designed to flush out the department's thinking about the way in which the Teacher Training Agency would be used. Her answer has helped us to understand a little more about the way in which matters are expected to develop. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 46 agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Power to give financial assistance]:

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 244A:
	Page 28, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) The powers under this section are exercisable with the consent of the Treasury."

Earl Howe: Clause 47 gives the Secretary of State powers to provide financial assistance for purposes related to education or childcare. This extends the powers contained in the Education Act 2002 for the purposes of promoting the welfare of children and their parents and for provision to support parenting, including prospective parents.
	I have two concerns about this. The first is whether the provision is necessary. The Secretary of State can ensure that any financial assistance is given to local authorities under Section 31 of the Local Government Act. This enables the Secretary of State, with Treasury consent, to make a grant for any purpose, both capital and revenue, to any local authority. This achieves a more flexible deployment of resources which can be used to address local needs and engage with a range of service providers.
	My second concern is that the power given to the Secretary of State appears to bypass the children's services authority in determining the needs and priorities of children locally. A number of us have said at various junctures in the Committee's proceedings that we question that idea, and I should be glad of the Minister's comments.
	If the power for the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to organisations other than local authorities is to be retained, it would be consistent with other legislation for Treasury consent to be required. That is the specific purpose of my amendment, which has been suggested to me by the Local Government Association. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hope that I can allay not only the concerns of the noble Earl but also those of the Local Government Association. I had a suspicion that it might have been concerned about this issue. We continue to talk to it, however, and I hope that it is less concerned.
	As the noble Earl has indicated, our intention is to expand the Secretary of State's existing powers under Section 14 of the Education Act 2002. Those powers allow payments to local authorities as well as schools, individuals and organisations, not requiring Treasury consent. Section 14 provides a clear prescriptive list of the only purposes for which such financial assistance can be given. They are limited by the legislation to purposes related to education and childcare.
	The source of these funds is the money that has been given to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by the Treasury as part of the spending review. As the noble Earl will know, it is at the point of giving the money that the Treasury can—and, I have to say, does—attach conditions to its use. Within those conditions and subject to Parliament's approval of the expenditure through the Vote procedure, the Secretary of State can decide how to use the money.
	We believe that the amendment is unnecessary as the Treasury has already decided that the money shall be given to the Secretary of State for his use and he can use it only for the purposes specified by Section 14, to do with education and childcare. We are adding to that list a specification for the new responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales for children's services.
	This is very different from the much wider power under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. Those grants can be given by any Secretary of State only to local authorities, for any purpose. There may not, therefore, have been any prior agreement with the Treasury in the spending review that the money will be used for a particular purpose. We think that it is appropriate that the Treasury should have the right to give consent when the grant is made, not least to ensure that there is no duplication of funding. Moreover, some of the grant can have an impact on local authorities' need to raise council tax, in which the Treasury has a strong interest. As I have already explained, the purposes for which financial assistance can be provided under Section 14 are limited by legislation and the amount of grant that can be paid would have been limited by the spending review. Therefore, we do not believe that further Treasury approval is necessary.
	The amendment would require Treasury consent for the smallest amount of assistance. We are trying to cut down on red tape and bureaucracy and we think that that would fly in the face of our efforts. It would also prevent small payments being made to schools without Treasury approval being obtained every time such assistance was provided.
	We have broadened these powers as the amended section would allow payments to voluntary sector parenting programmes by a voluntary sector fundholder on our behalf. The model draws on the unique experience of the voluntary sector fundholder in deciding which projects to fund. The amendment would require all grant payments made by the fundholder to be cleared with the Treasury. Again, I believe that this would be counter to the kind of funding decisions that we want to make.
	I am sure that the noble Earl is not planning to introduce more administrative procedures. It is about funding providers, not local authorities, so it does not bypass the children's services authority. We would expect those receiving any such funding to be part of working in co-operation and collaboration.
	I hope that that explanation allays the noble Earl's fears and also those of the Local Government Association.

Earl Howe: That is a very helpful reply. I feel sure that the Local Government Association will want to read it with care. No doubt it will let me know if it has any residual concerns. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 47 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We gave notice of our intention to oppose Clause 47 on behalf of the Local Government Association, in order to probe the meaning of the clause. We have had a very adequate answer, which perhaps goes to show that the Local Government Association still has some way to go in learning how to promote co-operation among relevant partners.

Clause 47 agreed to.
	Clause 48 agreed to.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 245:
	After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
	"FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS: EXEMPTIONS FROM RULES OF CONFIDENTIALITY
	(1) Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (8) there is inserted— "(9) No offence shall be committed under this section where information relating to a child or another individual who is or has been the subject of proceedings before a magistrates' court is disclosed to a Member of either House of Parliament.""

Earl Howe: I should like to raise a matter which has caused me, and others, considerable concern in recent months. I refer to the strict rules of confidentiality which apply to proceedings in the family courts.
	We all understand the reason for such confidentiality. The matters considered by the family courts are very often highly sensitive and relate in one form or another to individual children whose welfare and interests must be paramount. I fully recognise that the court needs to be able to insist that no part of its proceedings should be reported or referred to outside the court in a way which might serve to identify the child involved to the wider public. This principle was debated and agreed upon when the Children Act 1989 went through Parliament. As a generality, the principle is sound.
	However—and there is a big however—I believe with increasing conviction that there should be certain limited exceptions to this rule. When a family is faced with care or custody proceedings, the parents, or sometimes perhaps one of the parents, will wish to seek advice and help. They will do this, naturally, by talking to a solicitor, but very often their distress is such that they will also talk to their Member of Parliament. But if a child's case is sub judice, or has at some point in the past been sub judice, the very act of disclosing details of it, even to a Member of Parliament, is contrary to the law.
	MPs, as well as Members of your Lordships' House, are frequently asked to intervene with the police or social services in family problems involving access, custody or domestic violence. Strictly speaking, no parliamentarian may do so and remain within the law.
	Earlier this year, the Solicitor-General found herself in contempt of court, having been in possession of confidential material relating to a particular case, the details of which had been disclosed to her on an anonymised basis. The lawyer concerned believed that the case was relevant to the review of family court judgments announced by Mrs Margaret Hodge. No harm was intended by the disclosure. The Solicitor-General was not aware of the names of those concerned in the case. She did not publicise the matter and she acted throughout in perfectly good faith. But even so, both she and the lawyer concerned were acting unlawfully.
	The purpose of the confidentiality rules in the family courts is to protect children—no more, no less. When a Member of Parliament acts in good faith as a facilitator or go-between on behalf of a family—much as a lawyer does—or when a parliamentarian, in the course of his or her duties, is made aware of a case history that is otherwise subject to the confidentiality rules, such a disclosure should not fall foul of the law. In no way do I suggest that, by exempting parliamentarians from the scope of the confidentiality rules, they should be able to make free with the information that they receive. On the contrary, parliamentarians should themselves be bound by those rules as tightly as if they were the lawyers, principals or witnesses directly involved in the case. Provided that they obey those rules, they should not find themselves in breach of the law.
	I should be exceedingly grateful if the Minister would take this proposal away and give it serious consideration. I realise that it may have implications that need to be thought through. One potential difficulty concerns secretarial and other staff who may innocently but of necessity become privy to confidential data as a consequence of them being disclosed to a parliamentarian. That must be taken into account. There may be other individuals and groups to consider in this context. However, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the point in broad terms. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this issue. I will set out the current position because it would do no harm to be clear for noble Lords who may read this debate.
	Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 prohibits and makes it a criminal offence for any person to publish any material that would identify a child as being involved in family proceedings unless the court has decided that the welfare of the child requires the disclosure of specified material. Section 12(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 has the effect of making it a contempt of court to publish information relating to a children case before any court sitting in private. As the noble Earl indicated, we all recognise the importance of protecting children involved in court proceedings. But in protecting children we must also be sure that others involved in the justice system are able to gain access to the information that they need to protect children and support their parents—I am thinking not only of Members of Parliament, but of others such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, parents, litigants in person and organisations that work to assist them.
	When the police are called to an incident or are considering a prosecution with the Crown Prosecution Service, it would seem only right that they have access to relevant court information—so that bail conditions can be decided in the light of all the relevant circumstances, for example. When someone does not have access to legal representation, they may want to seek the assistance of voluntary organisations.
	The issue of disclosure behind the noble Earl's amendment has been brought sharply into focus by the judgment handed down by Mr Justice Munby on 19 March. This makes it very clear that publication of a wide range of information about a child's case, whether or not it would identify the child concerned, is almost always prohibited without the direct permission of the court, which can be given only if the welfare of the child requires it. The judgment held that "publication" covered almost all forms of communication, whether oral or in writing. I believe that that judgment prompted the tabling of this amendment by the noble Earl, who is concerned that members of the public who consult a Member of this House or of another place may leave those Members open to court proceedings.
	I fully understand the concerns and I agree with the noble Earl that we must think beyond amending the law in respect of disclosure to Members of Parliament without considering others—both inside and outside the justice system—who have concerns. However, there are several issues that must be teased out a little more. Although the amendment would exclude those involved in court proceedings who pass information to Members of either House of Parliament from the criminal offence created by Section 97 of the Children Act 1989, it does not cover the fact that they might still be committing a contempt of court under Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
	The amendment also refers only to proceedings in magistrates' courts. Section 97 was amended by the Administration of Justice Act 1999 and now covers proceedings in county courts and the High Court. Noble Lords will be aware that many proceedings involving children are heard in county courts. That means that members of the public who pass information about any proceedings in county courts would still be open to prosecution under Section 97, as well as contempt proceedings under Section 12. I am also concerned that, although the amendment would offer protection to members of the public who pass details of court proceedings to Members of both Houses of Parliament, it offers no protection to Members if they wish to make an onward disclosure, for example to a government department. Finally, there are also inconsistencies in the wording of the amendment, about which I am sure the noble Earl is aware.
	The amendment as it stands would be very difficult for the courts to interpret. For that reason, I cannot accept it. However, as I hope I have indicated, we have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I recognise the difficulties faced by constituents, Members of this House and the other place and others involved in the process, including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and parents. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will accept my commitment and reassurance that, in consultation with my noble friend Lord Filkin, who is responsible for disclosure of information in family proceedings, and others, we shall consider these matters carefully and come back with something suitable during the Bill's passage in another place.

Earl Howe: I very much welcome that commitment and thank the Minister for the full response that she has given. Since I tabled the amendment, I realised that there were deficiencies in it, but I let it stand as a means of raising the topic, which I am very glad to have done. I am sure that the Minister is right to take a little time to consider the issue, to ensure that all those who need to be brought within the scope of the exemption—if I can call it that—are brought within it, and that all interested parties are consulted.
	I am extremely glad that the idea has found favour. I shall not retable the amendment on Report, on the understanding that the matter will be raised in another place in due course. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 246A:
	After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
	"CONTACT WITH SIBLINGS FOR CHILDREN IN CARE
	At the end of section 34(1) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (parental contact etc with children in care) insert—
	"(e) any sibling of his"."

Baroness Walmsley: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is an assumption of reasonable contact between siblings who may be separated while in public care. The amendment comes to us from the NSPCC, in which I declare a non-remunerated interest. It is based on the findings of the Your Shout survey of the views of 735 children and young people in public care, which formed part of the NSPCC's review of legislation relating to children in family proceedings.
	One third of the children who responded said that they did not see enough of their brothers and sisters, and expressed in very distressing terms their experience of loss, isolation and anxiety, suffered as a result of that lack of contact. Naturally they had a strong bond of affection with brothers and sisters and other family members, and they found the situation very distressing. I shall quote two of the cases. One child said:
	"I have only seen my mum once since I was four, and I only found out I had three brothers when I was ten".
	Another said:
	"The second of the things that should have been done differently was separating us from our loved and cherished brothers".
	That is very sad, and it gives an idea of the isolation of those children.
	Section 44 of the Children Act 1989 deals with parental contact with children in care and lists those with whom the child should be allowed reasonable contact: parents, guardians and anyone in the same position as a guardian. The amendment would add siblings to this list. I am aware that the Children Act guidance and regulations emphasised the importance of maintaining contact between a child and family members, unless of course that is clearly contrary to the child's interest. There is nothing in my proposed amendment that would detract from the overriding duty of the court and local authority to protect the child from anything that might put him at risk.
	However, the sheer numbers of children involved in the survey and the situation that they described do not indicate that contact was being restricted because of any potential risk to the child. It is happening because this is an area of practice that appears to be very poor. The guidance does not appear to be being followed properly. The children's graphic statements in relation to the lack of sibling contact were endorsed by the findings of the adult inter-disciplinary consultation on the same subject.
	It is in response to the sad and isolated position of many of these children—and bearing in mind the fact that the majority of them will eventually return to their families of birth—that the NSPCC asked us to table this amendment for discussion by the Committee, so as to respect the core links between siblings wherever possible and make it much easier for children to reintegrate themselves into the families of birth when, it is hoped, that eventually happens. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: I rise briefly to support the amendment, which also stands in my name. I draw the Committee's attention to Start with the Child, Stay with the Child, which is a blueprint for a child-centred approach to children and young people in public care, undertaken by Voice for the Child in Care and the National Children's Bureau. I am a patron of Voice for the Child in Care. The document has considerable relevance to this question. The report says:
	"Feeling connected to brothers and sisters throughout their time in care, even when it was recognised that they might not get on well at that particular time, was also of special importance for children".
	It says, of black families:
	"Birth families were of vital importance to black children. Unlike for white children who are cared for in a predominately white society with endless white role models to draw upon, black families were often the 'gateway' and sometimes the only gateway, to other black people and a sense of ethnic and racial identity. Families were loved in their own right, but had a particular emotional importance for children and young people cared for in settings not reflective of their colour or ethnic or religious background. Maintaining links with brothers and sisters was important and the role of the extended family was often felt to be misunderstood".
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, this is a complex issue. That may be one reason why it has been overlooked in times past. I do not wish to take any more of your Lordships' time on this issue but I hope that in her response the Minister can give us some assurances about what is being done in this area.

Earl Howe: Although my name is not attached to this amendment, I would like to say how much I support what has been said about it. I think it is an extremely sensitive and important issue that has been unduly neglected over the years. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am hugely sympathetic to what noble Lords are seeking to do. The question for me is always how best to achieve what noble Lords are seeking. As the noble Baroness has said, Section 34 of the Children Act already requires local authorities to allow reasonable contact to a child under a care order, unless the authority has the permission of the court not to do so. I checked the guidance that goes with the 1989 Act. The Care of Children: Principles and Practice in Regulations and Guidance says:
	"Siblings should not be separated when in care or when being looked after under voluntary arrangements, unless this is part of a well thought out plan based on each child's needs".
	I think that is important in terms of thinking through how we approach this. Local authorities have a general duty, which applies to all looked after children, not just those subject to care orders. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act requires a local authority to promote contact between the child and his parents, friends and relatives, which, of course, includes siblings.
	There are groups that are very concerned about the relationship between looked-after children and grandparents, for example, as well. There are wider issues than siblings, although I completely accept that they are critical, as are parents, who I should not exclude for a second. There is a general principle here. Section 8 of the Children Act empowers the courts to make orders regarding contact where a child is looked after by voluntary agreement.
	The difficulty with the amendment is that it creates a different legal position for contact between siblings depending upon whether the child is looked after under a care order or under a voluntary agreement. I do not expect that that is what the noble Baroness and the noble Earl were seeking to do. We think that that is a problem and would create confusion in practice. The question for us is whether we have enough legislation to do this or whether something else is needed. Having looked at it very carefully, we believe that the existing legal framework achieves this but we accept that there is a need to improve practice in this area.
	Although existing guidance already stresses the need to maintain contact between siblings, when we revise the Children Act guidance we will look at how we might best strengthen the messages about the importance of this as a step toward achieving what the noble Baroness wants. So, on the grounds that the amendment itself would cause confusion, it is our view, having looked at it, that creating more law is not the essence of the problem. We will endeavour to try and make sure that in practice it works better through the guidance.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her answer. What we are trying to achieve is to make it happen. I do not think that any noble Lord is too worried about whether it is done this way or that way, as long as it happens for the children. I am very reassured by the Minister's suggestion that the guidance will be strengthened and perhaps her department will monitor how well it is being implemented; I have no doubt that the NSPCC will do so. We look forward to seeing if there is any improvement a little further down the track when the guidance has been strengthened. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 49 [Interpretation]:
	[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 247A:
	Page 29, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) the Ministry of Defence;
	( ) the Foreign and Commonwealth office"

Lord Lucas: This is, of course, a totally ridiculous amendment. There is no good reason why these two bodies should be added to the list. However, it seems to me equally ridiculous that we should endure the current situation where we sit in this House passing and adding to child protection legislation—like this Bill, basically thoroughly good legislation—and then the MoD in particular does nothing about it, or very little about it, or does something extremely late—10 years late in many cases—to implement it in respect of the children for whom it has charge who are abroad with their families who are serving in Her Majesty's forces. It clearly is not right to attempt to include these bodies in this clause, but what is? I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am not sure how to respond to the mover of an amendment who describes the amendment as completely ridiculous. However, I shall certainly try as I understand what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, or at least I think I do.
	Noble Lords will recall that when we considered this matter earlier, I said that children who lived on military bases in England would be covered by the Bill and would receive the same service as other children in local areas. We shall make clear in guidance that in those areas where there are bases we expect the children's services authority to involve them in co-operation and safeguarding arrangements.
	Armed Forces bases are already involved in area child protection committees where it is relevant. We shall make clear that we expect them to continue to be involved in local safeguarding children boards when they are set up. Of course, UK legislation, as it applies only in the UK, does not cover bases abroad. However, it is my understanding that the Ministry of Defence seeks to ensure that children living on overseas bases receive the same level of services as those living in the UK. Similarly, we intend that children of people working abroad in the service of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will have access to the same range of services as they would receive at home.
	I said that we would seek to make it clear that children on bases overseas would come within the remit of the commissioner, but obviously it does not follow that the relevant provisions can be applied for reasons that the noble Lord understands, and I shall not go into, about creating a children's services authority to operate overseas.
	I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord about the way in which we shall cover the needs of these children and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: I look forward to a provision emerging on this matter. My understanding is that something will be produced by way of a Statement or by way of an amendment to make it clear that children on bases abroad are covered by the remit of the commissioner. I believe that a measure is yet to come on that. I shall await it with great interest. What the noble Baroness said today about these bodies being expected to reach a certain standard in the area we are discussing is of immense help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 49 agreed to.
	Clause 50 agreed to.
	Clause 51 [Commencement]:

Baroness Barker: moved Amendment No. 247B:
	Page 30, line 38, at end insert "at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed"

Baroness Barker: It really does feel like the last period before the school holidays start and I shall do my best not to make it feel like double maths.
	Commencement of the Bill is an issue to which we have returned from time to time throughout our deliberations. The Minister in her very fulsome replies has sometimes given very good reasons why certain parts of the Bill cannot commence at certain times. However, she has been less convincing regarding other parts of the Bill.
	This amendment concerns child safety orders under Clause 48 which do not appear to have a given date for their commencement on the face of the Bill. The aim of this amendment is simply to ask why they have not been given a date of commencement. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It certainly does not feel like double maths. I am sorry if I have been less convincing on some matters and I have a whole speech that I could give about the reason that we are bringing forward the change in child safety orders, which is what I thought we would be discussing.
	However, regarding the specific question raised by the noble Baroness, we simply need a little flexibility in implementing these changes. Noble Lords who spent far longer than I did considering those orders in previous legislation will know that we have sought to make changes to put the threshold in the right place and to extend the timescales of the orders so that they could be used better and more fully than they are now.
	We want to consult on the proposed changes to the guidance on the child safety orders to make sure that people understand what we are trying to achieve. Because we want the guidance to be taken into account by the stakeholders who are involved with this, it is necessary to have a little flexibility in the timing of the commencement. It is no more than that. It is simply to allow time for those discussions to take place, the guidance to be received by people and then the orders to commence. That is an appropriate way forward, rather than trying to commence the Act when people are not sure what we are trying to do. That is our logic.

Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for that explanation. She will know that behind the simple question about timetabling there is a serious issue about which many noble Lords have expressed a great deal of concern. In such matters it is always possible to read the absence of a commencement date as a lack of commitment. I understand from the Minister's comments that that is not the case, but I hope that she will take from this discussion a strong hint that should there fail to be evidence of that process coming on stream within sufficient time, she will have a problem and people will be back at her door to ask her, "Why not?". But at this stage and with that explanation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 51 agreed to.
	Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
	In the Title:
	[Amendment No. 248 not moved.]
	Title agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before five o'clock to Monday, 7 June at half-past two o'clock.